Talk:Philosophy

This article was the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy collaboration of the month for December 2005.l

Problem with the Early Modern Philosophy section

I don't want to change it right away because its backed up by a reference but in the early modern philosophy section that it is "generally considered to end with Kant's systematic attempt to reconcile Berkeley and Hume". He was actually reconciling some elements of Liebniz's rationalist philosophy (as systematised and propounded by Christian Wolff) with elements of Hume's empiricist philosophy. I will change it unless someone tells me I'm wrong and put in a reference to Scruton's 'Kant: A Very Short Introduction' unless someone tells me not to! DannyHuttonFerris (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not backed up at all. The sentence was altered by an anonymous user (who is most likely an know-nothing nuisance, Lucaas) [1] to include the business about "Berkeley and Hume". I have restored the earlier version. Good catch. 271828182 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Intro. Changes

There's some stuff I like in it, but the first sentence is overly wordy ("broad" and "overarching" for example). Overall I don't feel it's a net improvement. The new last sentence of the first para. captures a useful idea, though. JJL 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Here is the diff, by User:Alfakim. I don't like it for the reasons you mention, so have reverted. Which was the sentence you liked? edward (buckner) 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I see it. But that thought is already there in the next section. "... there have been different, equally acceptable divisions at different times, and the divisions are often relative to the philosophical concerns of a particular period. " So no point repeating it. We're trying to cut down things here. edward (buckner) 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it said more-to-the-point that it wasn't merely the divisions that had changed but the actual focus (foci, I suppose) of the subject. That's an idea that's been batted around here and I thought it was well said in this change. The idea is elsewhere in the aricle but was succintly stated there. The rest I wasn't so fond of. Alfakim, this isn't meant as discouragement. There's been a lot of work on that intro. recently so please don't be surprised if people have strong feelings about it! JJL 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to make some other changes but had to leave. I think I was going for a clearer definition of what exactly the word philosophy really refers to - if it was too wordy, I can change the style. But I think the content addition was worth it. --Alfakim-- talk 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing of the current intro has always given me indigestion. In particular, ethics is about the right way to live - not the best way. Is this any better?

"Philosophy is the discipline which studies questions about the right way to live (ethics), the sorts of things which ultimately exist and their essential nature (metaphysics), how we can know things (epistemology), and the correct principles of reasoning (logic)."KD Tries Again 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)KD

Why dont you start out by saying that Philosophy a disciplin about the study about ideas? Then you can subdivide ideas into as many categories as you want. But one of the first of the categories should should be the idea of self conciousness/social conciousness which rules our behavioral patterns. Then when you come to the category of Natural Philosophy being ideas about real physical entities I could contribute to that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current repeated what... phrasing but can live with this. I suppose 'right' is more correct but don't have strong feelings about it. Is that which a that? I do prefer the discipline over a discipline. I'd be happy to see 'academic' back in there. JJL 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do not want to see a lot of time spent on the introduction, after the last year of edit wars, I do agree that ethics is about the "best" way to live, not the "right" way to live. I would favor that one word change, if there is no objection. Rick Norwood 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when has philosophy ever been concerned with just 4 little groupings? That makes absolutely no sense. Philosophy is rational thinking and addressing fundamental questions that should arise from experience or curiosity.

Babylonian philosophy - Eastern or Western?

I've just created a section on Babylonian philosophy. Since it is arguably the origin of both Eastern and Western philosophy, which section should it go under? I've placed it under Eastern philosophy for the mean time, but now I'm thinking of moving it to Western philosophy. Jagged 85 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the strong interaction of the Mediterranean peoples, I would put Babylonian philosophy (and Persian philosophy generally) under Western philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution, although I must admit I am struggling to understand it. As far as I know, Keynes' so-called "ordinary logic" is just everyday, human thinking, which is reasonable but which lacks the rigor of formal logic. Is this really a concept which helps us understand, of all things, the "axiomatic" logic of the Babylonians? It honestly doesn't help me. I'm also unfamiliar with this "nonergodic" term, and the Wikipedia article to which it links will be quite impenetrable, certainly to anyone looking for an introduction to Philosophy.

Searching for help, I did find this discussionon the web: "Paul Davidson has criticized Babylonian thought as supporting an "anything goes" approach to Post Keynesian economics. This note explains Babylonian thought, not as the dual of classical logic but as another form of logic that is rigorous in light of the nonergodic nature of social systems, and the uncertainty this entails. It is argued that Babylonian thought is one way of understanding Keynes's "ordinary logic," while Davidson's use of the term "axiomatic" appears problematic. But the ergodic axiom is so compatible with the open-systems ontology on which Babylonian thought is based that there is, in fact, scope for broad agreement." I am concerned that the brief entry on Babylonian philosophy might just represent a fairly obscure line of academic debate.

In any case, I am betting only an expert will understand it. Any chance of clarifying? KD

Clearly I misunderstood -- I thought by Babylonian philosophy you meant the philosophy of ancient Babylon as expressed, for example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Evidently it has a modern meaning I have not encountered before. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to see a reversion to a simpler statement about Babylonian philosophy. From further investigation, it seems that the Sheila Dow work relating Keynesian logic to Babylonian axiomatics is a specific theory in economics, rather than philosophy (it also seems to have been inserted in, and then removed from, a number of Wiki articles). I have no idea if it deserves to be on Wiki, but surely not in the general philosophy article.KD —Preceding comment was added at 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section about Babylonian 'philosophy'. It is poorly referenced, and the subject matter bears little resemblance to 'philosophy'. Sad to see our friend Ludvikus was blocked again. edward (buckner) 15:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That may very well be your opinion, but the Babylonian section already has a reliable source from a peer-reviewed journal. Jagged 85 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What People are Interested in Philosophy.

Our integrated class is doing a study on what type of people are interested in certain subjects. Where are all these people coming from that are on here researching philosophy.

Is it the great philosophers that strike your fancy. Or is it the fact that people like philosophizing themselves.

I could start philosophizing on what kind of people i think enjoy philosophy but... right now thats not the point.

What is so appealing about philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgeous dorkfly (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be unwelcoming, but it's against Wiki [policy] to chat about a subject on an article's talk pages.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)KD

Podcast Links

Have you thought about linking in External Links to www.philosophybites.com? There are already 30 interviews with contemporary philosophers on a very wide range of topics including the question of what philosophy is. Oxvox1 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The thoughts a society thinks has profound repercussions on what it does.

I removed the sentence "The thoughts a society thinks has profound repercussions on what it does." because it is a bad sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.47 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About existencialism

I really wouldn want to mess up the page...by editing this myself...but Kierkegaard actually uses the word existencialism...to be precise...he invented it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.201.132 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kierkegaard uses the adjective "existential", but I don't believe he calls himself an existentialist or talks about existentialism. I think the point the article tries to make is that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche didn't - couldn't - view their philosophy as being "existentialist". They were retrospectively dragooned into the movement. If you have a citation for K. using "existentialism (-ist)", please let us know. In that case, I'd be in favor of a change.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)KD

Existentialism Section Restored

An attempt was recently made to revise the section, resulting in some lost references, typographical errors,the introduction of unsupported argumentative material (e.g. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were "appropriated as predecessors" by later existentialists), and some simple misunderstandings ("nausea" did not refer to the novel by Sartre). I have reverted and then cleaned up anything else as best I could.

Since this has been a relatively stable section, I think editors would hope to see some discussion here before unilateral changes are made.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)KD

I also just noticed the Phenomenology section being introduced by a false statement about the mind shaping the natural world. That has probably been there for months. I revised it to something more accurate.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)KD

Phílos or philein?

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that philosophia comes from philein (to love) rather than philos (lover). ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Philosophy ) Anyone with any Greek know which one's right? JASpencer (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• You'd think we'd have that right, at least, wouldn't you? Well, I disagree with the suggestion that philein is involved here. Most sources say philos (eg Britannica [2]), and you are citing a Wiki article on a 1913 encyclopaedia - which is risky. However, the article currently renders philos as "lover" or "friend", and I think it's just "love": philosophia, love of wisdom (Latin, by the way, not Greek). I think the article should be changed accordingly. KD Tries Again

It's interesting that you think that, KD. However, no respectable source will agree with you. Using accentless transliterations for convenience: the infinitive of the verb is philein ("to love"); the first person indicative of the verb is philo ("I love"); the abstract noun is philia ("love"); and the agent noun is philos ("friend, lover"); this last can also be an adjective, meaning "loving". I don't know why you think otherwise, but you do and you are wrong. In some obscure archaic forms, or some other dialects than Attic, things just might be different. But so what if they were? This is all standard Greek. See this excerpt, from [Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon]:

I. pass., beloved, dear, Il.1.20, etc.; paide philô 7.279; freq. c. dat., dear to one, mala hoi ph. êen 1.381; ph. athanatoisi theoisi 20.347, etc.: voc., phile kasignête (at the beginning of the line) 4.155, 5.359; with neut. nouns, phile teknon Od.2.363, 3.184, etc.; but philon tekos Il.3.162; also philos for phile (Att., acc. to A.D.Synt.213.28), philos ô Menelae Il.4.189, cf. 9.601, 21.106, al., Pi.N.3.76, A.Pr.545 (lyr.), E.Supp.277 (lyr.), Ar.Nu.1168(lyr.): gen. added to the voc., phil' andrôn Theoc. 15.74, 24.40; ô phila gunaikôn E.Alc.460 (lyr.): as Subst.:

a. philos, ho, friend, kouridios philos, i.e. husband, Od.15.22; philoi friends, kith and kin, nosphiphilôn Il.14.256; têlephilôn Od.2.333, cf.6.287; ph. megistos my greatest friend, S.Aj.1331; philoi hoi engutatô, hoi engista, Lys. 1.41 codd., Plb.9.24.2; after Hom. freq. with a gen., ho Dios philos A.Pr.306; tous emautou ph., tous toutôn ph., Aeschin.1.47; ph. emos S.Ph.421; tôn emen ph. ib.509; tous spheterous ph. X.HG4.8.25: prov., estin ho ph. allos autos a friend is another self, Arist.EN1166a31; koina ta tôn ph. Pl.Phdr.279c, cf. Arist.EN1159b31; outheis ph. hôi polloi ph. Id.EE1245b20; also of friends or allies, opp. polemioi, X.HG 6.5.48; ph. kai summachos D.9.12, etc.; of a lover, X.Mem.3.11.4 (in bad sense, Lac.2.13); phile my friend, as a form of courteous address, Ev.Luc.14.10, etc.; in relation to things, hoi mousikês ph. E.Fr.580.3; alêtheias Pl.R.487a; tôn eidôn Id.Sph.248a; Chious ph. poiêsai Lys. 14.36, etc.; poieisthai Luc.Pisc.38; ktasthai Isoc.2.27, cf. Th.2.40; philous tithentes tous ge polemiôtatous E.Hec.848; philôi chrêsthai tini Antipho 5.63; hêmas echein philous And.1.40; for Hdt.3.49, v. philios.

To see how this works in compounds, consider another word from the same source:

phi^losophoklês, ho, a lover of Sophocles, Phld.Acad.Ind.p.55 M., D.L.4.20.

And last, the Greek word for philosopher, from the same source:

phi^losophos, ho, lover of wisdom; Pythagoras called himself philosophos, not sophos, Cic Tusc.5.3.9, D.L.Prooem.12; ton ph. sophias phêsomen epithumêtên einai pasês Pl.R.475b, cf. Isoc.15.271; ho hôs alêthôs ph. Pl.Phd.64e sq.; ph. phusei, tên phusin, Id.R.376c; ph. têi psuchêi, opp. philoponos tôi sômati, Isoc.1.40: used of all men of education and learning, joined with philomathês and philologos, Pl.R.376c, 582e; opp. sophistês, X.Cyn.13.6,9; later, academician, of the members of the Museum at Alexandria, OGI712 (ii A. D.), etc.

2. philosopher, i. e. one who speculates on truth and reality, hoi alêthinoi ph., defined as hoi tês alêtheias philotheamones, Pl.R.475e; ho philosophos, of Aristotle, Plu.2.115b; ho skênikos ph., of Euripides, Ath.13.561a; as the butt of Com., Philem.71.1, Bato 5.11, Anaxipp.4, Phoenicid.4.16.

II. as Adj., loving knowledge, philosophic, andres Heraclit.35; anêr Pl.Phd. 64d; to ph. genos Id.R.501e; ph. phusis ib.494a; psuchê ib.486b; dianoia ib.527b; peithô Phld.Rh.1.269 S.; sunesis ib.p.211S. (Comp.); hoi philosophôtatoi Pl.R.498a, cf. IG5(1).598 (Sparta). [...]

And then the later, derivative word philosophia itself is simply the condition of, or the art of, the philosophos. It is the lover of wisdom's love of wisdom.

I have amended the etymology accordingly, and removed the "fact" tag. The meaning is so well known that it would simply clutter things to provide a further citation. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is right, in a way. It just provides what it takes to be a more fundamental form: the infinitive of the verb. Britannica is also right, in its way. But it doesn't break the word down into its two parts, as we do. That's all!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the appearance of heavy sarcasm in the above was unintentional, I'd mildly point out that Britannica, a reasonably respectable source, says: "from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”". That's all I said. And as far as I can tell, you yourself think that philosophia, the art of the philosophos, is the "love of wisdom": "It is the lover of wisdom's love of wisdom. So stripping away all the etymology, I don't find your point very clear. Do you really think "philosophia" (not "philosophos") means lover/friend of wisdom?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)KD

The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (MacMillan) translates "philosophia" as "love of wisdom" (vol. 5/6 page 216). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"philosophy {Gk. filosofia [philosophia]} Literally, love of wisdom.Philosophical Dictionary Every source I find, including the Webster citation given in the article, renders "phlosophia" as "love of" wisdom or knowledge, not "lover/friend of". The current revision to the article is at best misleading. I would rather not revert it without discussion. Am I misunderstanding something here? Are there any sources which give "lover/friend" for "philo-" in this context?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Absent any response to the above, I've now conformed the sentence to what the citation (3) actually says, and removed a citation to Runes which had no relevance.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)KD

O, sorry for being absent from the discussion. Busy elsewhere.

KD, Let me just point out that what I changed was your edit which made this the text:

...a compound of φίλος (phílos: love) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom).

No one disputes that φιλοσοφία is well rendered as "love of wisdom". But I had to correct you about φίλος: by itself it does not mean "love", but "lover, or friend". Hence my edit:

...a compound of φίλος (phílos: lover, or friend) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom).

Because people have been uncertain about such details for some time here, I gave some authority for this, above. The article currently has this instead, anyway, thanks to you:

The word is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning love of wisdom or knowledge.

That may be the best, since the matter of componding is complex beyond the discussion we have had about it. At least now if editors want to analyse the word into its components they can refer to the source I cite above, from Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: the standard reference on these matters. I supplied this in the first instance because you wrote above, concerning φίλος, "I think it's just 'love'." Wrong: but no problem now!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to fix it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Philosophy is dead?

Just a quick one here and I don't want to edit this myself (I don't want to mess up the page) but maybe a section could be put in about the "Philosophy is dead?" argument. You only need to type it in Google to find a lot of information.

I don't know it might be worth mentioning? Lachy123 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) fdd

Why not dumb down some other article?

Nietzsche and Perspectivism

"Nietzsche proposed perspectivism, which is the view that truth depends on individual perspectives."

A perspective, for Nietzsche, is not necessarily the perspective of an individual. It may be the perspective of a state, a culture, a class, or even the forced transcendental perspective of a species. Although perspectivism may now be taken to refer to a crass individualist relativism, Nietzsche's original doctrine had to do with the impersonal forces responsible for the shaping and selection of beliefs, even the belief that a self, ego, or subject, exists.

""Everything is subjective," you say; but this is already an interpretation. The 'subject' is not something given, it is something fabricated; added and projected behind what there is. - Is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis."

– Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. mine , The Will to Power, (1883-1888)

So, I'm going to change that line, if that's all right with everyone.

Apophrenetic (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you, but the more fundamental problem is the slow shift of that section in the direction of incoherence. I don't believe there is any need to mention Nietzsche's perspectivism at all in this context; all that matters is what makes Nietzsche a precursor of the existentialists, and I don't believe it's his perspectivism. I have reintroduced some clearer language (I think) from an older version. It does still need an introductory sentence and a brief and relevant comment about Nietzsche - I will try to come up with something shortly.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Guys what has happened here

The definition of philosophy section, over which there was much blood spilt early last year, has gone. Looks like there was a revert war and something got lost. It looks ridiculous now. As I am not technically supposed to be editing here (I am permanently blocked now) can you please put any discussion on my talk page, thanks. Edward.

Copy edit

Would anyone mind if I attempted a copy edit or is this a controversial page? I've found things like "The thoughts a society thinks has profound repercussions on what it does," which is perhaps not the best advertisement for the rigors of a philosophical training. :) Dreamberry (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt that this page needs major re-working, but as you suspect there are those who are attached to certain -isms who will be critical. The opening paragraph reflects a long series of compromises but much of the rest is in desperate need of editing. JJL (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That very sentence could usefully be deleted. JJL is right, of course, although any reasonable person could only be grateful for some copy editing, as long as it really is just copy editing.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg

Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a new definition of Pure Logic be added here ?

Pure Logic defined by my person, is initially all the fields of rational/irrational thought analysis, and all the fields, and scopes known/unknown of logic/illogic, defined yet or not ! I do not have enough money as yet to publish these new writtings. Aiming to unite Science and Logic, without overpassing the Philosophy of Science, or philsophy in Science. (24.86.57.172 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)) (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

All the best with the project, but Wiki rules strictly prohibit insertion of material which can't be supported by citation of already published sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

Religion vs. Philosophy

Religion: Pre-structured system of beliefs to abide by. Philosophy: Finding the answers to loopholes in one's beliefs.

(?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.161.57 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion vs. Philosophy

I think its important to make a good distinction between the two.

Religion: Pre-structured system of beliefs to abide by. Philosophy: Finding the answers to loopholes in one's beliefs.

(?)

i know, sometimes, here and there i get confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.161.57 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Religion be Identified by Philosophy?

Should religion be identified by philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.28.239 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No Religion should be discouraged by Philosophy, in its idle moments, and by other available means, but thats just my view, and a value judgment. Why did you ask, and what has it to do with this article? --Philogo 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Socrates and Plato discussed theological cosmology; they even said to honour divinity.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Structuralism and Poststructuralism

I was surprised these disciplines were not mentioned, since they have so largely shaped late 20th century philosophy, so I added a section on them. --Le vin blanc (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to dampen enthusiasm, I am concerned about some of the statements made in this section. It's worth looking at the Wikipedia main articles to which it's linked. Structuralism didn't begin with Saussure; I am not sure Saussure's project is correctly described here; the notion of language speaking man strikes me as Heideggerian; I don't think structuralists believed themselves to be analysing systems from an "external" standpoint - rather the opposite; and it's a mistake to give the impression that the post-structuralists are a homogenous group serving as a vehicle for Derrida's views. The idea that meaning is perpetually deferred is specific to Derrida - you won't find it in Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze, et al. Furthermore, by no means all post-structuralists began as structuralists. I know this is all negative - I wonder if the editor responsible would care to think about some of these points and take a look at those other articles?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You are right in saying it isn't Saussure who says language speaks man. The decentering of man was an interpretation of the implications of Saussurean structuralism. You are also right in saying only Derrida (and Barthes) believes in the deferment of meaning. I did make the groups look a bit too homogeneous too, but the reason was that I was worried that if I went into structuralism and poststructuralism in any detail, it would take up too much space. Furthermore, my main concern was with merely making a holding section for them, in the hope someone with more knowledge would fill it in. Anyone reading this article would think structuralism and poststructuralism never existed, when they in fact had a large influence on 20th century though. --Le vin blanc (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas

Any objections to removing the thomas aquinas quote which seems kind of random and out of place?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. –Pomte 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Roman Philosophy

I think this " Plato's writings are often considered basic texts in philosophy as they defined the fundamental issues of philosophy for future generations. These issues and others were taken up by Aristotle, who studied at Plato's school, the Academy, and who often disagreed with what Plato had written." Should be reworded as I don't necessarily agree that they defined the fundamental issues in philosophy and there is much critique of these works. I think this section makes them sound too pristine.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the text here it expresses the common view of most philosophical studies, that Plato defined the fundamental ideas, and that subsequent philosophers may disagree with Plato, but cannot ignore Plato. In other words, Plato chose the subject matter, but was not necessarily right. In fact, in my opinion, Plato was almost always wrong, but he still laid out the rules of the game. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think by "defined the fundamental issues of philosophy for future generations" and the "basic texts" thing make it sound as if his works are widely accepted whereas in truth, I think, most philosophers disagree with most of what Plato had to say. Not sure he defined all the fundamental ideas either, maybe some.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

could this be useful?

hello guys, i know these pages are full of material but if you believe this could be useful and adapt please add :)

http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=it&msa=0&msid=107892646478667659520.0004445545f2b2cffb9ed&t=h&z=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.114.34.24 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it's better to put the link under 'external links' please do... I am not familiar with wikipedia conventions... for suggestions please write here or as a map comment. dario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.121.199.1 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Word Usage

Here is the first sentence from the Philosophy page:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1][2] The word is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning love of wisdom.[3]

Yipes! "...what counts as genuine knowledge"? We can do much better than that, can't we? The whole *page* needs a revision of grammar, syntax and terminology. I've rewritten some sentences that pertain to the definition of philosophy, but I'm swamped and tired. What we need is a group of folks that are good editors of prose to overhaul it completely. I think the nature of the topic allows for a more robust usage of vocabulary i.e., we don't need to dumb down the phraseology. Is anyone feeling frisky? Supertheman ^(talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, 'genuine knowledge' is a correct way for philosophers to speak about epistemology. Does anyone here even have a B.A. in philosophy? --Jbadge24 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell quote

The quote under Branches of Philosophy states:

"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."

While I (mostly) agree with this rather acute witticism by Russell, do we really need a blanket dismissal of philosophy as confusing claptrap on the main page of philosophy? Seems like something that would find a better home on Russell's page or some subpage delineating the debates that rage within the discipline. I've spent a good deal of my life trying to convince teachers and administrators of public schools the need for a high school philosophy course, it would be nice if instead we found quotes (even droll ones) that elucidate the need and benefits of philosophy instead of deriding said. Thoughts? Supertheman ^(talk) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think our ability to laugh at ourselves is an asset, not a liability. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... did you miss the part where I said: "...it would be nice if instead we found quotes (even droll ones)"? Laughing is great, a complete dismissal of philosophy as incoherent garbage that confuses things, ah... that's another (IMO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Supertheman. It IS funny, but its just a joke. Its position on the 'front page' implies it is to be taken seriously. Let del or move it to Bertie's page. --Philogo 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Philosophy

The definition of epistemology was far too obtuse. It is far more than simply the "nature of knowledge", it is the study of the nature of knowledge and its origin, its methodology and the limits thereof. Also, logic is concerned with the *correct* principles of reasoning, not simply the principles. I think we need to be careful that the definition of philosophy isn't so truncated as to be basically worthless. The fact that it is about philosophy behooves us to provide the finest definition possible. Supertheman ^(talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, Plato was not a philosopher.

This is a battle that I have fought too often to care to fight it again. I only point out that if, by definition, philosophy is rational, then philosophy cannot consider the question of whether or not rational methods are best in philosophy, any more than you can consider, within trigonometry, whether or not triangles are the best subject for study.

In The Republic, Plato argues against the use of the rational method in philosophy. In Book VII, for example, we find the assertion that knowledge comes not from logic but from the soul: "Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being..." and later this dismissal of mere "cleverness", "Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of the clever rogue..."

So, as long as we agree that Plato was not a philosopher, I suppose the current definition in this article can stand. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the said paragraph and while I would argue for coherence if not rationality it needs to be changed. Why don't you suggest something here. --Snowded (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several users who believe strongly that the use of logic and reason should be part of the definition of philosophy, rather than a subject discussed within philosophy. I spent countless hours a couple of years ago working with these people for a compromise acceptable to both, and we reached an agreement in which both points of view were put forth in the article. All of that time and effort was wasted because this article changes so rapidly, and because people who would not dream of editing, say, the article on physics, have no hesitation editing this article. I decided that there are battles I want to fight and battles I want to walk away from. To keep this article reasonably good is a full time job -- and I already have three other full time jobs which I actually get paid to do. So, I visit this article from time to time, but trust others to keep it in line on a daily basis. I hope, Snowded, you will be one, and I will not return in 2009 to ask, "Where are the Snowdeds of yesteryear." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK will gird up my loins and attempt an edit in a week or so when I have time. Just finished an exhausting set of battles on the Wales and British Island pages so need to recharge. --Snowded (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree with all Rick's negative points, but not his positive assertions about Plato, who believed, of course, that we could recover what we already (somehow) knew through the rational method of dialectic. Rick's is an extraordinarily selective reading, which overlooks the small matter of Socrates' method.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

One doesn't have to agree with him over Plato to agree that the phrase is a bit restricitive. I was thinking of making some changes using "coherence" rather than rationality?--Snowded (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

KD Tries Again is right, I've only read about half of Plato (and only about half of Aristotle, but I'm still reading both). It seems to me that Plato's early dialogs are an absolute delight, but that as he got older he fell into the trap that many highly educated people fall into, of thinking he was always right. In fact, he was wrong about a lot of things, and his idea that we attain right ideas by a kind of remembering or by inspiration from some godlike genius (which you don't find in the early dialogs) was one of his bad ideas.

But Snowded is right about the big point, which is that if all philosophy uses logic, this rules out, by definition, all other methods. I love logic myself, but I would like to see logic win the battle on other grounds (pragmatic grounds, it may be) rather than be declared the winner before the fight even begins. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

By the dog. An encyclopedia article is not the place for Rick's reflections. Can we get some sourced claims? 271828182 (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Philosophy

Picking up from the above thread I have attempted to take some of the old material, respect Newbyguesses legitimate reduction is size and use sources and cross references to create something which is hopefully non-controversial. --Snowded (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This page seems doomed to repeat the past (see lengthy discussions of "rationality" from 2007). The way to stem this sterile semantic debate is to apply the policies on OR, NPOV, and V. For one possible route (as well as a clear demonstration of the POV nature of Rick's suggestions), see this data. 271828182 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems unduly pessimistic. Firstly one doesn't have to accept Rick's position to argue that the previous definition represented an alternative POV. My feeling in making the recent amendment was (in the spirit of WIkipedia) to go back to referenced material, in this case the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Although I would not support much of Blackburn's position in his papers/books I think he does a good job in the Dictionary of being neutral. So I don't think the current version is POV, nor does it support Rick's position, but it does deal with his objection. --Snowded (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 271828182. Is that you, Dbuckner? Welcome back! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do to see the point of understand the subject of the paragraph entitled Definition of Philosophy in principal nor see what is acheived by the content as it stands. Is the word philosophy in Definition of Philosophy being used or mentioned?--Philogo 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the sentence beginning with the words "In addition to being a subject in its own right it can also mean...". What does it refer to, philosophy or philosophy? The sentence is clearing doing the splits! It is hardly an example of the precise and careful use of language.

Proposal to delete paragraph Definition of Philosophy

I propose we delete this whole paragraph, as misconceived both in intent and content. Any objections? --Philogo 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The intent is right; work from sources. The content though, at least the bits that just repeat 'philosophy is hard to define' in different words is not very inspiring. Start again, and something better can replace that. --NewbyG (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which do you support:

• Delete the content (and start again) OR
• Delete the paragraph including title and start again OR
• Delete the paragraph including title and do not start again

--Philogo 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever works. Delete it, and salvage what is worthwhile. Or leave it, for the interim. There may be further comments or editing which may shed some more light on the prospects here. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Things have moved on. The para was renamed and duplicate or irrelevant content removed. I note there is a whole article called "definition of philosophy"; enough is enough and too much already is too much. I have never understood the alure of this so called topic, which seems really a dumbing-down topic like the perennial "Is X dead" question, where X is history, god, logic etc. Do people write articles on the definition of physics/physics or music/music etc. Is it perhaps really a secret desire to give a stipulative definition? Or is the topic really "what makes a problem a philosophical problem": that would be slightly more interesting, but nobody would take he slightest bit of notice of it. --Philogo 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition of music is a contested evaluation of what constitutes music and varies through history, geography, and within societies! -- Not very informative, really. There are many articles that needs improvement, under the Philosophy banner. The problem is, some stuff is wrong, other stuff is missing, and editors with real expertise are few and far between. That being said, any editors who can contribute ideas in a civil and consensus-respecting manner, and look for reliable sources is going to do work which will be appreciated. --NewbyG (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I make the general point that two editors working overnight (from a British point of view on time zones) does not a consensus make for major changes. That said I can agree that there was a lot of duplication. So aside from some formatting changes I have changed the first paragraph from an unsupported statement to one which is cited. I also think the branches of Philosophy needs some radical editing. Each of the fields needs one/two sentence descriptions (or possibly none) while Metaphysics and Epistemology are overstated. --Snowded (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and get rid of the section on branches, putting the couple of missing references into the first paragraph. That way we don't have the overstatement and the relevant article pages can handle the detail. Oh an having read Definition of philosophy I really think it should be deleted, it adds nothing overall. --Snowded (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I compiled Definition of philosophy, not as an article, but as a reference source, during the 'troubled' period of this article. People were saying that philosophy was mysticism, Zen buddhism, astrology and what have you. It was helpful to have a list of what authoritative sources actually say about their own subject. I strongly favour returning to a previous version and taking it from there - that method worked reasonably well in the past. Peter Damian (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see this old dispute has blown up again. Can I refer you all to Definition of philosophy which is not really an article, but a list of citations about the definition of philosophy.

1. Most sources agree that philosophy is difficult to define. So why shouldn't that stay?

2. The current introduction (by Snowded - welcome Snowded) is not bad, but reflects a modern, psychologistic view of philosophy, one which I tend to agree with, but which does not reflect the historical view philosophy over its whole 3 millenium history.

3. That the method of philosophy is rational enquiry (as opposed to revelation, guesswork, empirical investigation &c) is generally agreed (except here, I'm afraid, I speak as a veteran of the 'troubles'). Peter Damian (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I would have no objection to adding "difficult to define" and it is almost impossible to be neutral in any statement. That said there is much baggage with the word rational, I don't think you can exclude empirical investigation etc. etc. The norm in Wikipedia would be to use a citable source rather than opinion of editors per se which I why I went to Blackburn. Improving the definitions article would overcome historical changes. Mind you I think that could become a section here and the definitions page be deleted. --Snowded (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the Definition of philosophy page was intended as a resource only. Lurking around here is also a separate compilation of quotations on the nature of philosophy. I'll see if I can find it. Peter Damian (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Found it Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. A lot of useful stuff in there, including descriptions of their own subject by randomly selected philosophy departments (Rick Norwood hated that). Also at the bottom some remarks by the Oxford philosopher Peter J. King who was a contributor here briefly before driven off by the general madness. Peter Damian (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad resource to have linked to a sentence about different views in the introduction --Snowded (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy, busy, busy

The shorter lede is a great improvement.

I think the list of topics that fall under philosophy is still too long, and prefer Durant's list of just five major topics. In any case, a list should have a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the list to the main accepted ones, and, Rick, I have added back the sentence about rationality. Your quotation of Plato above rests on a complete misunderstanding of Plato, by the way. He is generally reckoned to be an extreme rationalist philosopher (though with promounced and idiosyncratic views on the nature of reason). Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep the issue about rationality away from Rick's reference to Plato. That is a red herring. There needs to be some form of words that says Philosophy is not a simple set of assertions and is based on argument etc. However "rational" has too much baggage. How about something around 'coherence'? --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why does 'rational' carry too much baggage? It is derived from the Latin word ratio which means all sorts of things like concept, nature, understanding, reckoning. You like the word 'argument' but 'ratio' was one of the most frequently used words in medieval philosophy for 'argument'. The form of words 'wedded to reason/rational thinking' were denoted by Peter King during his time here, and I would like to see them stay in some form. If you don't like 'rational', how about 'reason'? (Though it means no different). Peter Damian (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not fond of 'coherent' because it means something rather different. 'Coherent' is just something that sticks together, which is different again from 'consistent', which means actually 'standing together' and so on. None of the definitions in the standard reference sources uses 'coherent' so why are we using it here? By contrast, the majority of the sources make some reference to 'rational' or 'reason'. Peter Damian (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of coherence in the sense that Thagard uses it which I think has potential. However I agree its not commonly used. I was about to suggest "That study involves the application of reason and the development of coherent arguments seeking to avoid unexamined assumptions" but you edited the article while I was writing the comment here. I do think the history of philosophy would prevent us excluding faith and analogy completely and I don't think that adds anything so I will edit that out

Otherwise one thing I think is missing is the degree to which philosophy was synonymous with the natural sciences for much of its history. In recent times the split with psychology in the 19th C was also significant, as is the coming back together of those disciplines with some of the naturalising approaches linked to cognitive science. --Snowded (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"That study involves the application of reason and the development of coherent arguments seeking to avoid unexamined assumptions" - I think that is a bit of a mouthful! On the extent to which philosophy was synonymous with the natural sciences for most of its history, that would involve a lot of OR. Philosophy wasn't really synonymous with the natural sciences as we understand them (which involve mostly observation) but rather with armchair a priori theorising. While the scholastics were generally very good at the philosophy bit, they were hopeless at the science, generally relying entirely on Aristotle as their source. (Roger Bacon is a sort of exception, though not much).

I liked your blog thing on Gaussianitis, by the way. Afflicts many people I work with. Was largely responsible for the credit crisis, too (Gaussian copula model). Peter Damian (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for, literally, years. Saying that "most" philosophy is rational seems a reasonable compromise. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be like saying most arithmetic is correct, or saying that because not all grammarians write in good grammar, that grammar itself is not about correct syntax. Of course many things done in the name of philosophy are not at all rational - is there any philosophical argument or line of reasoning that all or even most philosophers accept as correct? The point is that the method of philosophy is wedded to reason. The fact this discussion has gone on so long, Rick, is mostly because of you, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you (Snowded) have removed philosophy being a method (" It is by its methods rather than its subject-matter that philosophy is to be distinguished from other arts or sciences" - Ayer), which practically all reference works agree on. Also on it being 'wedded' to reason. The point of 'wedded' is to stress the ambition that all philosophers have. And what properly philosphical works require leaps based on faith or pure analogy? Citations please! Peter Damian (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) OK, for a start can we discuss things here not go direct for edits? Also for this phrase there are no citations on either side at the moment and I wouldn't want to wed myself to Ayer. To sort out the issues:

• Philosophy as a "method" is one of those phrases that is sort of OK, but can lead to the assumption that philosophy does not necessary address the issues of (to take an example) right and wrong, but instead looks at the linguistic structures associated with statements of rightness and wrongness.
• "Wedded to reason" is a bit florid (and an analogy by the way) but can be lived with
• not based on faith a substantial body of philosophy takes assumptions of faith and then seeks to working out reasoned assumptions given that core set of principles. I can think of Rahner for example in the modern age and many others. One does not have to agree with them of course, but it is part of the tradition.
• or pure analogy I really don't see what this adds. Given that we had already said reason

Comments? --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy not to go for edits, but I was simply replacing what was there originally.

1. The idea that philosophy is a method is deep rooted in the philosophical tradition. I'll try and find more citations if you want.

2. 'Wedded to reason' was King's contribution - see here Talk:Philosophy/Quotations#Peter_King. King by the way was better known under a different account here where he was a respected admin for many years. It is an analogy, but I can't think of a better one. Saying it is 'wedded' to reason nicely fields the objection that so many philosophers are unfaithful to it.

3. On the faith bit - to quote King again "The dualist belief of a Christian isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith; the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief.".

PS I have made an edit, but I trust this will be to your liking. Thank you for discussing this in a 'reasonable' way. Peter Damian (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with method, but don't see it as a major issue. The faith thing is more serious and you have to remember that we have to include (much as I would like not to) social constructivists and post-modernists of various types! However I think I am happy with we talk about non-reliance on assertions of faith. I have made that edit in the hope of a final compromise.

PS Your phrase "Scholasticism is not just a method, but also a system of theology and philosophy, and a movement, possibily even a doctrine" on your user page is a good one and summarises my concern on the use of method. --Snowded (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too am comfortable with the edit. Scholasticism is not necessarily the same as philosophy, by the way, but point taken. Peter Damian (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure doing business with you sir, now lets see what happens to it when the night shift engage. --Snowded (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, and yes, very true about the night shift. Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

PS was intrigued by the Welsh thing, and looked at [[Category:Welsh_philosophers]]. H.H. Price I knew about, but it seems a stretch to put Russell in that category. Peter Damian (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

: More poets than philosophers in Wales and even though there is a picture of me as a baby on Russell's knee (Aldermaston March I was in a pram) I am not sure I would want to claim ownership. --Snowded (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for retaining the sentences about "method" and "wedded to reason" -- but until they are buttressed by sources, filler such as "it is generally agreed" will attract termites. I will look for some good sources as time permits, but Ed, er, Peter has some already linked to above. 271828182 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section, some edits

I would also say that "Wedded to reason" is a bit florid (and an analogy by the way) but can be lived with.

A) Are there any alternatives please for 'wedded' -- based on, rooted in, incorporating, making use of, engaged with; reasoning blah blah - -

B) Other than that one word, looking at the last 20 edits, not sure who did what; good work. The article has a more respectable lead section now. The 'Branches' section (it's dropped isn't it?) wasn't really needed. --NewbyG (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Of your alternatives I like "engaged with". "wedded" came from Peter so I will leave it to him to defend. --Snowded (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are wedded to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.

Who says so?!

Most subjects e.g. Physics, Geography, Archeology are "defined" by means of what it is that they study rather than how they do it. It does not seem at all obvious to me that Philosophy is a method any more than Geography, History, or Biology are. Who is the implied majority who "generally agree" that Philosophy is a method, and do they also generally agree that Physics, Geography, Archeology are methods? Suppose we try to define some discipline or field of study as a method, Philosophy of anything you like. Lets take Chemistry say. You look at some chemists, (its the middle ages), and you observe what they do - their "methods". Lets say its boiling stuff in retorts. You define chemestry as "boiling stuff in retorts". Later you see somebody who calls himself a chemisy but he is NOT boilinng stuff in retorts, he is looking through a spectrometer at a flame in which he is holding a piece of metal. Imposter! you cry, your no chemist!: why are you not boiling stuff in a retort! If Plato did not write a dialog on this I can imagine one....

Soctrates: Now Thrasymachuis, what is this military science you admire so much? Thrasymacgus: Why it is the riding of horses, the throwing of javelines and killing people and raping and pillaging as well of course! S: So were I to get on a horse, and throw a javeln at soebody killing him I would be practising military science would I? T: Of course not, it would not in the context of a war. [some pages later] S: So you agree then that Miltary science in not any particlular method, but the study, by any method whatosover, of the theory and practice of warfare. And mathematics is not the method of drawing diagrams but the study by any method whatsover aimed at obtaining mathematical truth....

--Philogo 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Loved the dialogue and I think this remains the weakest sentence. One option is to delete it but agreement could not be achieved on that yesterday. Now that said most other disciplines have a "Philosophy of ..." so there is clearly an element of method, axioms etc that needs to be specified. I thought we did well to use reason as well. Philosophical method does not help much, another weakly constructed stub by the look of it. Its also difficult to talk about method without writing a mini-essay on history. Peter was going to try and find a citation and I will try and have a look around today. --Snowded (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Most fields are defined by their method. In mathematics, for example, the method is logic. If I arrive at a mathematical idea by, say, trial and error, it is just a conjecture. In science, the scientific method is required. If I do chemistry by consulting astrological charts, it's not real chemistry. I would say that the method of philosophy is attempting to see the big picture, and to ask the big questions. Thus chemistry is not philosophy, because it is too concerned with particulars, but the study of induction and deduction is philosophy, part of logic.

This is, of course, original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the question given below so far as I can see only one quotation says that philsophy is amethod, thefore it is not genrally agreed that it is.

I do not agree that most subjects are "defined by their method": a subject can adopt a new method but remain the same subject. Does a gors trainer cease to be a horse-trainer if changes the way in whcih he trains horses? Did aracheologists cease to be arcaeologists when they started using carbon dating? Makes no sense!

Is "trying to see the big picture" a method; sounds more like an activity to me. If we open a book which claims to be one of philosophy, I grab the foirst one that comes to hand: It's J L Austin's "Sense and Sensibila". On you criteria to decide whether it is in fact a philosophy book I have to see if it's "trying to see the big picture". Oh dear, first I must decide what "the big picture" is. I know, its the answer to life , the universe and ... everything. (LOL) Oh dear! The book I picked is just about "the unreal scholastic structures of theories of perception. Does not sound like a big picture to me, and certainly not THE big picture. But maybe I am wrong about what "the big picture" is. Who can help me? Philosphers of course, but I can only tell who is a philosopher if I know who is "trying to see the big picture", and how can I do that if I do not already know what the "big picture" is. Your a rascal Rick, yu realy had me going there: your trying to make fools of us all by making us chase out own tails! Now be a good chap and go and write Catch-22 revisited, but first delete this awful paragraph.

I am sorry if I sound cynical: it's because I am. It does not stop me being a nice person, I blame that on something quite different. No offence meant and IMHO of course! --Philogo 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

References

This is v depressing after the work last year on a consensus version. Below I have listed some definitions by reasonably notable people, on the way that philosophy is characterised by its method (i.e. only by its method). I also found on Trinity College Dublin's website a version of the introduction we last agreed by consensus last year. It is instructive which bits they used (including 'wedded to reason').

I don't understand why we don't like 'wedded'. It was suggested by an eminent philosopher who used to be an editor here. Trinity College like it. It suggests that philosophy and reason are on an equal basis (so reason is neither the handmaiden, nor is she the ultimate authority to which philosophy must appeal in every case). Moreover 'wedded' implies commitment but possibly the occasional infidelity. If anyone can suggest a turn of phrase which captures all those ideas then fine.

A

Philosophy is an activity: it is a way of thinking about certain sorts of question. Its most distinctive feature is its use of logical argument. (Philosophy the Basics, Nigel Warburton).

B

Philosophy is the activity by means of which the meaning of statements is clarified and defined. (Moritz Schlick, 'Die Wende der Philosophie' in Erkenntnis, 1, 1930).

C

Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about

1. the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), 2. the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and 3. the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value).

Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature:

1. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. 2. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. 3. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved.

Anthony Quinton - Oxford Companion to Philosophy

D

Philosophy is an activity, a way of enquiring, reasoning, analysing, arguing, and so on. It isn't a set of claims, propositions, theories, or whatever -- it is the process that leads to those things. The dualist belief of a Christian isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith; the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief.

Peter J. King 100 philosophers

E

The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a theory but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. The result of philosophy is not a number of 'philosophical propositions' [philosophische Sätze], but to make propositions clear. Wittgenstein Tractatus 4.112

F

"Western philosophy is wedded to reason and other faculties of the human mind, unaided by any divine instrument." On Philosophical Synthesis (G. R. Malkani) Philosophy East and West, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jul., 1963), pp. 99-103

G

"Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); what existence is and what it means to be (ontology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, or authority. In Greek, "philosophy" means "love of wisdom." Philosophy is based on rational argument and appeal to facts. The questions addressed by philosophy remain the most general and most basic, the issues that underlie the sciences and stand at the base of a world-view."

Trinity College Dublin Philosophy dept prospectus, using the original version of the Philosophy intro). Peter Damian (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that that article was relatively stable, and the recent changes not discussed, seems strange considering that there have been more than 100 posts in talk in just the last few days.

Your definitions do not say what you say they say. For example:

You say, "philosophy is characterised by its method (i.e. only by its method)"

Your first reference says: "Philosophy is an activity: it is a way of thinking about certain sorts of question."

Note that "about certain sorts of questions".

If philosophy were characterized "only" by its method, how would it differ from mathematics?

What is your objection to the current, referenced definition, which I chose from a long list of definitions proposed a long time ago, but referenced here recently. I chose that one primarily because it was short, and seemed to say what needed to be said.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My objection is the source is obscure, and does not agree with most standard definitions. I have given references for the original version. Peter Damian (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

9.4.2 A Its most distinctive feature is its use of logical argument. Yes, but to what ends?

9.4.2 B Hmmm, is this the 'linguistic turn'?

9.4.3 C Philosophy is rationally critical thinking... seems useful for this article.

9.4.3 C 1. Not wrong, but dangerous territory: 'My Philosophy of life is...etc'

9.4.4 D Philosophy is an activity, a way of enquiring, reasoning, analysing, arguing, and so on. It isn't a set of claims, propositions, theories, or whatever -- it is the process that leads to those things. -supports Method (but not the second sentence)

9.4.5 E Wittgenstein says 'elucidations' : that's a real neat word, by gum.

9.4.6 F Ah, so it is G.R. Malkani whom is to be blamed for that wretched analogy 'wedded'. Well, if Malkani must have their way, then so be it. Who, pray tell, is the bridesmaid, and who the groom, etc? Oh, BTW the quote (taken at face value, but out of context) is wrong in fact; faith and reason have continually jousted in mankind's thoughts and philosophies; Wittgenstein explicated religious beliefs, isn't Aquinas a philosopher as well as a theologian? Let's not open that can of worms in the lead.

9.4.7 G Trinity College. Yes, except for the dreaded 'wedded' analogy this is perfectly adequate. A previous version of the lead, is it not?

Some comments IMHO at this point in time, all care but no responsibilty taken by the management etc. --NewbyG (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep re-looking at this list and still only find one quote which says that philosophy is "a method" although several several say it is "an activity". In my dialect of English, the word "method" and "activity" are not synonymous. Therefore I am mystified why the one quote which says philosophy is a "method" is selected when more quotes say it is an activity, and clainms the latter as suporting the former. I am even more mystified that nobody seems to be able to say what that one method is. Am I missing something here? --Philogo 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoid edit war

Guys neither version is stable, both were developed in the last couple of days. Not only that but several authors (including you Peter) seem to have a habit of changing the main text prior to agreeing alternatives here. I suggest no more changes by anyone without an agreement here.

My own view on this is that we could get rid of either sentence as I don't see either as strictly necessary. If we have to have one then I would suggest:

• Method on its own is not enough to define Philosophy
• Wedded is a bit florid and could be replaced by some of the earlier suggestion

--Snowded (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NO wrong the version I have reverted to has been stable since Feb 2007. Stable enough that Trinity College Dublin now have it in their prospectus. The earlier suggestions replacing 'wedded' were awful. Peter Damian (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest a suitable replacement for 'wedded' then. It has rather attracted some deprecation in posts to this page. The Trinity version is reasonable, but would be better without that very loose anology, with all its implications (de facto philosophy anyone?) and Malkani's quote does not inspire me, singularly, in that we do not want in any way to open up the faith-versus-reason imbrologio in the Lead Section (and weddings suggest 'religious' observances just by way of one more excellent reason to strike that pesky word). --NewbyG (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose

We will have no sentences trying to define what philosphy is, or what its methods are, or the equivalent, in this article. --Philogo 21:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not agree. The version I have reverted to has been stable since early 2007. Give me some solid arguments to replace it. See all the citations above. Peter Damian (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave a number of arguments above. I would add that the while attempt seems to dumb down the article. A secton discussig various views as to the nature of a philosophical problem would be another matter, (if it were written seriously with opposing views from texts of note. "Stable" does not mean "good" or even "useful". A lot of people might well not bother to read the rest of the article having come to this "What is philosophy" bit, assuming it was not a serious article. I find it embarrasing. But let's see what others say: is 1 for and 1 against so far.--Philogo 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Peter altered the following giving no reasons other that the wording he subsituted was "stable". Stability is hardly an argument: the view that Sun went round the earth was pretty "stable" but that did make it a superior.

Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate and very general, concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value. In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. The central elements are logic,epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, ethics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and aesthetics.

Peter should says why his substitution is better, explaining why philosophy is a method, so that philosphy cannot change its methods without ceasing to be philosophy. --Philogo 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison - This seemed reasonable — Philosophy attempts to answer the big questions with the help of reason. — though I don't think it is the best we have.

The version just above this post: also reasonable, could be improved.

The (current?) version, different from both above? : yes.

Let's discuss or propose changes on this page; I am not 'committed' to any particular version, and discussing a particular version here does not necessarily imply a commitment to that version, or any other, if that makes sense. --NewbyG (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with the latest change by Newbyguesses which seems a reasonable compromise. Although I note direct edit rather than discussion! I suppose each page has its own style of editorship. --Snowded (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting stability is a reason for keeping in the long-term, but the serious edit wars over the introduction pre Feb 2007, when Peter King & I wrote the present version, suggest that we should not change a stable version until we have consensus. It is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we stick to versions which achieved consensus previously, until a new consensus. So I have reverted, until then.

I don't understand the objections to 'wedded'. Why is it florid? This is a pejorative term for ornate, suggesting useless decoration. 'Wedded' is Peter King's word, and it expresses exactly the relationship required. Philosophy is not merely 'aided' by reason, which a servant or handmaiden might do, but rather the relationship is equal (and implying commitment, without absolute fidelity). Until we can find a word that expresses exactly that relation, I would like to keep.

"In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument." is itself imprecise, suggesting that it is the study of philosophy, rather than the practice which requires careful argument &c. Peter Damian (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wedded in colloquial use normally has a negative context, sticking to something that you should have given up. Now this may something about colloquial attitudes to marriage. The reference to religion and its linkage to superstition is also unfortunate in the current text (after your reversion), it takes a position rather than being a neutral statement. --Snowded (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a position but it is a correct one. There is another use of 'wedded' which is not pejorative, but I shall change to 'committed' if that is your objection. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter - please do not insist that other people discuss changes here before changing them but exempt yourself. Wedded not a good word, committed is I think better so that is an improvement. The religion/superstition issue you have not addressed sor the alternative suggestion from Newbyguesses which can not simply be rejected on the grounds it was not agreed by you and one other some years ago. --Snowded (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well happy for you to revert back. I only insist that the basis we start from is the original version, which did include 'superstition and religion' for some months. Peter Damian (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I see you have reverted. Can I suggest 'characterised by appeal to' which softens the harsh effect of 'religion and superstition', i.e. neither religion nor superstition are 'characterised' by this, though religion may certainly be committed to use of reason (e.g. Aquinas). Peter Damian (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way the 'religion and superstition' bit was in fact by Rick Norwood. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave for meetings in London, I will return to this tonight. Personally I still like the phrase from Newbyguesses. Sort of apologies for reversion, but we have to stop making direct edits and discuss here first it was very frustrating over the weekend when that was not complied with. --Snowded (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for making direct edits. I too have to leave for London. "Superstition is a considerable ingredient in almost all religions, even the most fanatical; there being nothing but philosophy able entirely to conquer these unaccountable terrors" - Hume. Peter Damian (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and as others have said before me Hume was wrong! Interesting new stuff on the role of religion coming out in evolutionary psychology and some cog science my the way. --Snowded (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for years, and whatever we decide will be changed by the next generation of editors. Still, we need to do our best. I explained above, Peter Damian, why your references do not really claim that philosophy is method alone. You did not respond. Also, the dislike of the word "wedded" seems to be pretty universal, so I have to ask why you are wedded to "wedded". Also, no definition that dismissed religion out of hand is going to last very long.

It seems to me that we need to say something. The two words that people seem to want in are "big" and "reason". Where can we go from there? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to quit squabbling among ourselves and find an authority that a majority of us (2 out of 3? 3 out of 5?) respect.

A couple of famous quotes on the subject.

Alfred North Whitehead, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

George Santayana, "It is a great advantage for a system of philosophy to be substantially true."

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of Philosophy by major authors

Here is a modern textbook by Copleston paraphrasing Aristotle paraphrasing Thales: "Philosophy naturally tries to understand the plurality we experience , its existence and nature, and to understand in this connection means, for the philosopher, to discover an underlying unity or first principle."

From "What is Philosophy" by Deleuze et. al. "The following definition of philosophy can be taken as decisive: knowledge through pure concepts."

Monty Python philosophy, "Life's a piece of shit."

I don't think any of these are quite what we are looking for, though the first is tempting. I look forward to better contributions from others. I think we want to look at the writing of philosophers rather than academics. Textbooks are expecially bad, usually written in a jargon called textbookese. (Math textbooks are the exception, of course.) Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More definitions

I have added to Talk:Philosophy/Quotations the excellent 10 definitions (actually 9, because I already had Nagel's) that User:271828182 found in his garage. Once again 10 out of 10 for 'reason' or 'rationality'. I don't see any reason for changing the existing intro substantially. As a concession to the position of those who dislike 'wedded' (I don't understand why, it was written by a qualified philosopher who has written many books about the nature of philosophy, and was good enough be used by Trinity College) and change as per this diff.Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to change the existing intro substantially. As for 'wedded', it is one word, and respect to Trinity College, it is not the King James Bible, is it. The appeal to authority, is, moreover, a fallacious type of argument. I would say more here, but why bother, when argument is replied to by revert? --NewbyG (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, characterised by appeal to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.

So far there has been only one objection to my proposal. So it is 1 for and 1 against. --Philogo 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Two objections --Snowded (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Three objections -- see below for reasons. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer - 'Philosophical investigations unlike those of religion or superstition proceed by way of reasoning...' Lose the word 'appeal', certainly. --NewbyG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I note that of the 7 quotations A-G only the last claims that Philosophy is characterized by its methods. Thta 6:1 against "Method". IS that why it was chosen?--Philogo 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the definition I added to the article is one of the ten definitions on Peter Damian's list. He reverted it.

Everyone here (as far as I know) likes reason and logic. The objection is to saying that a) all philosophers are reasonable (counterexamples abound) and b) all that is reasonable is philosophy (philosophy is method).

Also, I don't think this article should dismiss religion so cavalierly.

I think we need to keep looking.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not forget about it?--Philogo 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to dismiss religion so cavalierly, in the lead section, that is not the purpose of a lead section. --NewbyG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are agreed on changing "wedded" in one case with reluctance! We are agreed on reason although I am less sure that logic adds to this. In the common sense use of the word fine, but in the meaning more common in Philosophy I am less sure as much that counts as logic is dependent on a theory of language which can be questioned. I think several of us are concerned with limiting philosophy to "method" and I would prefer to remove it. I think we are also agreed that an article on Philosophy should not dismiss religion or necessarily associate it with superstition. Is that a fair summary? --Snowded (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me we have a substantial agreement as to what we want to say in the Lead section, and desultory confusion as to how to say it best. As the page is presently rather busy, I think I will refrain from the edit which it is obvious that I would like to make just for now. Also, I'm unexpectedly called away to deal with some problems concerning my elderly parents. Looking forward with interest to seeing the further progress of this page under the capable stewardship of whichever esteemed editors get stuck in while I am off-line. Cheers --NewbyG (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we are close to agreement. Which, of course, doesn't mean we won't be fighting this same battle here next year. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Branches of philosophy

I have replaced branches of philosophy because this was part of the 2007 version, it got misplaced when the article was badly vandalised - I don't believe there was any consensus to remvove it. (If there was then by all means remove it, but most articles of this sort do have some discussion or explanation of the branches.

I think this is better balanced now, but needs rewording but it is going in the right direction. If we keep the rule of 1-3 sentences each and generally aim to improve each one that will be goodness. --Snowded (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also completely rewritten the 'ancient philosophy' section. Peter Damian (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you lost something here with the removal of Socratic method

Also completely rewritten the early modern section. The 'later modern' and 'modern' sections seem not to bad. Peter Damian (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method": a challenge

I challenge any editor to
1. Explain how, if the above is true, that philosophy could change its method or indeed adopt a second one, without ceasing to be philosophy
2. State what the method is
3. Say how it is known it is "generally agreed" and by whom. --Philogo 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses to challenge

No responses! That's very disappointing. This who believe that philosophy is a method are being very mean and grudging with their knowledge. Why will they not tell us what the method is? Then we can go though our collections of so-called philosophy books and weed out the ones that don't use the one true method. What is it: do tell! Socrates himself has returned from the shades to sit at your feet and here the pronouncement. Courage! Speak! Enlighten! --Philogo 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A most eloquent silnce fell.--Philogo 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Break

Peter Damian's edit

A good edit, though somewhat rushed. I've polished a bit, and cleaned up a few typos, but made only minor changes.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

African Philosophy

I fully understand that philosophy in general is very west-centered. However, it would be nice for this section to lay out some of the projects that African philosophers are engaged in that are different from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. --Jbadge24

Reply

1. To the objection that few of the sources cited use the word ‘method’. Maybe not, but they nearly all use the word ‘way’, and use the word ‘systematic’. Now a method is by definition a way of doing things, especially one that is systematic. I recommend the careful reading of the Quinton quote. See also the expanded Talk:Philosophy/Quotations
2. To Philogo’s objection: certainly, whatever does not have the characteristics that are distinctive and characteristic of philosophy, then it is not philosophy. That is obvious. I don’t see the problem.
3. To Norwood’s objection that other subjects, e.g. mathematics, are distinguished by their rational, systematic, critical approach, I say to understand the word ‘distinguished’. Mathematics and other subjects are primarily distinguished by their subject matter. Philosophy has no real subject matter, other than (perhaps) the most general, primary and fundamental questions. Philosophy is thinking clearly and logically about the most fundamental questions. Period.
4. To the objection about religion, I say understand the word ‘distinguished’. Some religion, particularly the scholastic system, employs reason a great deal. But it is not distinguished by its use of reason, nor is reason the final court of appeal. Aquinas e.g. regards the truths of revealed authority as transcending reason. Reason is the handmaiden of theology, not its mistress. Happy to change the wording to make it clear that no implied disparagement of religious beliefs. Peter Damian (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Won't you try to answer my challenge above?--Philogo 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just done that. Please stop this prevarication. Peter Damian (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh so forceful and commanding Peter - but alas, not convincing. Now do stop messing about and tell us what this one true method is. There a space reserved for your response above. --Philogo 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Method of philosophizing - It is not so much a matter of 'method' as it is of 'methods'. Perhaps it is 'methodical' that is the requirement. Philosophy involves thought. (Thought is an action, or activity undertaken apparently, by certain individuals, or so they say.)

Philosophers proceed by various methods or means. They cogitate, they discuss, they write, they argue, they inquire. They think. They use words, and try to follow from one point to the next in their thinking methodically, taking no unjustified steps. --NewbyG (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To most mathematicians, mathematics is distinguished by its method, pure reason from axioms and definitions, rather than by its subject matter. Witness the new mathematical areas of coding theory and game theory. I would say the same is true of science, a method rather than a set of subjects. Not everybody agrees with this, but not everybody agrees with your definition of philosophy, either.

I would vote in favor of your definition above, if you would change one word: "Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions." If you want to go on to say that "Most philosophers agree that logic and reason are essential to philosophy." I have no problem with that, either. I would have a problem if you changed "most" to "all". As for religion, I think it is best we not mention it, at least not in the introduction. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions through the application of reason" --Snowded (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're close to an agreement. As I've said, for the reasons I've given, I don't want to make the claim that all philosophers use only reason in their work. Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason. I don't agree, but I'm not Kant. Can we agree on:

"Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions. Logic is the characteristic method of philosophy."

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that moves us away a bit. Logic has a lot of associations connected with semantic meaning which I am not sure can be sustained. I am not arguing for being illogical, but that logic has its limits. You are right about the Kantian dichotomy though (I never liked that). How about "Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions where possible through the application of reason" --Snowded (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the reading of Kant, Rick has raised this many times before. So by way of reply, here is a link to what an Kant expert said to Rick last time. “With all due respect to Rick, he's said that he hasn't read Kant; I don't know if he's read books about Kant; but I'd ask him please not to hold up the page with what appears to be a second or third hand misinterpretation.”

The alternatives given here are no more likely to be accepted by the majority of philosophers. None of the quotations in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations use the word ‘carefully’. One uses the word ‘careful’ but that is in the expression ‘careful’ reasoning. By contrast, do a ctrl-F on ‘reason’ or ‘rational’. It’s blindingly obvious where the ‘weighted average’ lies, and that is all we are after. We are never going to get a definition that everyone agrees 100% with, we are merely trying to come up with something that reflects what the majority of secondary sources say.

Also, no one is claiming “that all philosophers use only reason in their work”. Very few if any philosophers actually do. The question is what characterises the method or way of doing philosophy that they would aspire to. Can someone try to understand this distinction.

So I don’t see any reasonable arguments at all for changing the current intro much from where it is at the moment. I.e. drop “wedded to reason” for “characterised by appeal to reason” which nicely brings in the idea of ‘appealing’ to reason.

On the notion that philosophy does the ‘big questions”, we already have that in the quote from Blackburn.Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So it currently says "Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4]"

We have also agreed that the reference to religion is wrong.

SO I think you may be saying Its investigations are characterised by appeal to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4] --Snowded (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can go with "characterised by an appeal to reason". In fact, you'll notice it is close to what I suggested above. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax: Soon we will be told that the one true method of Philosophy is, then where there was darkness there will be light!--Philogo 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Peter Damian has said that his "one true method" is reason. Let's at least try to get along. Where he goes too far -- far beyond his sources -- is insisting that anything discovered by reason qualifies as philosophy, and that all philosophers agree that reason is the method of philosophy.

But nothing is to be gained by going around and around about this. Can we all accept one of the suggestions above? Let me put that another way. Does anyone object to

Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions. Most philosophers agree that rational discourse is the proper method to address these questions.Rick Norwood (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather stick with 'wedded to reason' than 'characterized by appeal to reason'. Appeal is just another sloppy analogy. Why do we persist in the antropologicalization error? Poor style of writing and word choices should not be allowed to detract from and distract the reader from following the discourse. My dog barks, it doesn't talk or appeal to me. And I dont 'appeal' to reason, I 'employ' reason (another analogy, yes). Reason is a concept, an abstract, not a person; reason has no ears to hear our appeal. clunkitty clunkitty. I have no problems with the current text, if that is the best alternative on offer. --NewbyG (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the version I suggest does not use the words "wedded", "appeal", or "employ". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason is a tool

Let's keep working on the lead section if necessary, if in fact it is necessary.

Reason is a 'tool' we employ when doing philosophy (among other things used, and among other activities which benefit from a reasoned approach, i.e. crossing the road). Reason is a 'tool' like a saw is a tool for cutting wood. I do not"appeal" to a saw! I use a saw, or if we absolutely must have a metaphor/analogy to artificially stimulate the reader's empathy, I employ a saw. A saw has teeth, it is not "characterized by having teeth", that just wastes words. --NewbyG (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We are still working on just one sentence and we are not necessarily been rational in the way we are going about settling this. The sarcasm and bickering doesn't help and given Wikipedia's approach we need to use sources and/or gain consensus. Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant. Picking through the threads above how about this:

Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4]

I have removed the offending analogy, kept with reason rather than rational (associations with rationalism) --Snowded (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote of the day

Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant

Am I actually going mad. Norwood said " Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason. " And I pointed out that some time ago Norwood admitted he had never actually read any Kant (perhaps he has since then). Very good. Every time I have worked on this article I get to the point where I can take no more. I only bother with this page because the page statistic tell me 5,000 hits a day, that's about 1.8m people in the world rely on this page for some basic knowledge about Kant, say (who I have read, and was taught by a renowned Kant scholar). This really is completely mad. Resolution: never get involved with this article again. Go on guys, do your best. Peter Damian (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to go back to Wikipedia Review. I'm finished here (yes, I know, I tend to say that. But I'm really going to try hard this time). Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter that is an over reaction and taking my quote out of context (although I may have been unclear in which case I apologise). In the WIkipedia people can edit by referencing primary and secondary sources. Part of the strength is that the credibility of the edit is in the edit and its references not the person doing the editing. The previous comments were verging on the ad hominem, hence my comment. Good pages have both subject matter experts and others involved in their creation. A section on Kant, and the article on Kant would obviously require heavy weight subject expertise. The point about Kant arguing that there were things beyond reason in the context of agreeing a minor statement at the start of the page was OK. It does not require primary source, it could well be secondary. Of course not all who read, understand .... --Snowded (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm finished here. I tidied up the rest of the article which was a mess. I completed most of the work on Medieval philosophy which was a wreck. Any subject-matter expert who gets involved with an encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit' is insane. Time for a sanity check. I always regret coming back to this article. Peter Damian (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am not missing the point. Norwood, an amateur with no qualifications in this subject has regularly disrupted this page for years with his idiosyncratic views, and has made this claim about Kant many times to justify the version of the introduction he would like. One again, read Persistent_misreading_of_Kant_dogs_this_page. Peter Damian (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good pages have both subject matter experts and others involved in their creation. Subject matter experts are inevitably going to leave when they get involved in the equivalent of a usenet debate. Peter Damian (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my experience temperate subject matter experts respect the contribution of others. The Wikipedia is a complex system (in the scientific sense of the world) and idiosyncratic views get sorted out in the interactions. There are processes to handle vandalism and trolls and mediation processes. I find the whole thing a fascinating experiment which works. So I think you are in a minority. I do think that people should register (I don't like dealing with IP), and should be willing to declare their expertise but no institution is perfect. I think it would be a pity if you left, I understand you have a history with Norwood, but I always thought that philosophy should engage with the world. I chose to study it based on reading Plato at 14 and being fascinating by the ideas. At 14 I knew little, but I could engage. Too much philosophy fails to do this. --Snowded (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Pleas don't give up. I think that was meant as 'please do not belittle someone' because they haven't read Kant. It was perhaps a little unclear, I see User:Snowded has already acknowledged that, always a forward-going gesture.--

The comment did not seem to deserve the 'venting' which User:Peter Damian came out with, but we are all brushing that sort of stuff aside aren't we. It is still Lent where I live, and I gave up insults and taking offence this year. It is up to each user to choose to contribute or not; it is up to each of us to accommodate to that in good faith. --

Whether anyone has read Kant is irrelevant, as long as they don't edit the Kant-related sub-section, or blab on ignorantly about Kant on the talk -page. --

Wikipedia does not have a credentials policy; a most frustrating situation for those who do have professional qualifications. Ideally only those (professional) contributors could work on the body of articles, and interested lay-persons only stick their 2 pennies in when they can produce a reff. source, or tydy a speeling missteake. --

I will put up with a fair amount of snarkiness on a page if I can respect the valuable contributions of experts there. Others are entitled to be irked when seemingly attacked though, so we ought all be careful in that regard.

Say thank you when some humble editor contributes even a comma or semi-colon, it doesn't hurt. And it balances all those other times when editors well-meant ideas are shot down in humiliating flames. --

Don't drive away our expert contributors, I think there is currently a fairly heated policy-related discussion pursuant to that objective. Not that I am meaning to chide any contributor in particular here, unless it be myself to that effect. Cheers --NewbyG (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of how much patience one has with clearly idiosyncratic views based on self-confessed ignorance of the subject matter. And I'm not in the minority, hence my link to King's page above. (I am not him by the way). He was driven off by precisely this sort of thing. And for my part I have a difficult translation project that involves a lot of time and effort. I give my time and expertise here for free. Why on earth should I? What's the point? I spent a lot of time assembling a long list of quotations from reliable sources, that prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt. But this doesn't work. Just read the threads above. I am finished with this, I mean it. Peter Damian (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Kant:

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Pure Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…"[36], but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

back to the outstanding question

My latest attempt at synthesising the various views was:  ::Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4] I think that incorporates the various views but comments? It would be nice to finish this one off. Also I made a series of changes to the branches section. I hope they were non-controversial --Snowded (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I say I’m going to do my best to stay out of this for reasons of mental health, but I should point out that changing to ‘use’ from ‘wedded to’ fundamentally changes the entire meaning. Look at the following quotes, all from authoritative sources.

• Reasoning is the “mainstay” of work in philosophy (Cahn & Eckert)
• Its “ultimate goal” is to arrive at a rationally justified position (Pojman)
• Philosophy’s most “distinctive feature” is its use of logical argument (Warburton)
• It is “wedded to reason” (King/Trinity College Dublin)
• Reason & scrutiny are “integral” to the very idea of philosophy (Cottingham - referenced in the Philosophy article as note 4)
• Reason is “central” to philosophy (Muhlenberg College)
• The acceptance of no other authority than reason is “The most distinctive feature of philosophy” &c
• Because of its “unique” emphasis on clarity, argumentation, and critical evaluation … (SDSU)

These do not merely say that philosophy ‘uses’ reason. Surely you can see that? Have you or anyone actually gone through the list of sources I compiled and tried to frame a definition of philosophy that was a ‘best fit’ to all of these? And now that really really has to be it. Good luck. You are probably the most reasonable person of the group of editors here, and you clearly have some knowledge of the subject (your other edits were not bad). But I hope you keep your sanity. Peter Damian (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have been through the sources Peter and I am also active in the field, particularly in the integration of cognitive science into experimental methods for doing philosophical research. On that basis aone I am unhappy with the word "rational" becuase of its multiple associations with disputes and assumptions that we should be putting behind us. I understand your liking for "wedded" but it is more allegorical than factual. Reason is a good compromise and the proposed text reflects that (and incidentally most of the quotes you reference above. --Snowded (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrestling with a straw man. Everyone agrees that most philosophers are wedded to reason. Nobody here is trying to break up that marriage. There are a few philosophers who have fooled around with other muses, or at least accused their colleagues of doing so, but everybody here loves reason all to pieces, as long as it isn't carried to extremes. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again you both misunderstand and misrepresent my point. That is essentially why I am having nothing to do with this article. It is impossible to have a reasoned dialogue with you. Peter Damian (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black?--Philogo 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can we have our ball back, mister?" Rick Norwood (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Brevity is the soul of wit. The day will not be won by repetition, certainly not by name calling. We have several proposals before us. I suggest we vote and move on. Whatever we decide here will be changed by future editors, that's the wiki way. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

good to summarise them Rick, but then lets talk about it. A vote in Wikipedia is a last resort of consensus cannot be achieved. --Snowded (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. Just write the article yourself, Rick. Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I proposed ::Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4] any objections?

I have no objections, so long as you agree that you propose to eliminate the idea that use of reason is the “mainstay” of philosophical inquiry, or its ”ultimate goal”, or its “distinctive feature”, or that reason and scrutiny and critical attitude are “integral” to its nature, or that reason is “central” to it, its “most distinctive” feature. Any such idea you propose to remove from the introduction. I just want you to be absolutely clear about this. And are you then going to remove the misleading footnote 4 (by Cottingham)? Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter the phrase uses REASON and many of your original words. I am very clear about what it means --Snowded (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. You agree you are removing an important idea from the sentence, namely that the use of reason is not merely part of it, but distinguishes philosophy, or is central to it. You seem reluctant to address this point. Peter Damian (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

in a one sentence introduction I think the reference to reason in my draft establishes it that it is central to Philosophy. I don't agree that it distinguishes it however --Snowded (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about whether you agree or not. The question is what reliable sources say. Reliable sources are almost unanimous in agreeing that the use of reason is fundamental to philosophy. That is not the same as merely saying that philosophy uses reason. Peter Damian (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter I wish you lecture less and discuss more. I am happy to agree that reason is fundamental to philosophy, that is not the same thing as to say that philosophy is defined by the use of reason. It is also a nonsense to say that Philosophy has some privileged use of reason over other disciplines. It is central to the Humanities and Science alike. We are dealing with a simple sentence here not an extended essay. --Snowded (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again I don’t care if you agree or not. All that matters is what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say black is white, then the article says that black is white. It doesn’t really matter what we think. If the sources say that “Philosophy has some privileged use of reason over other disciplines” then we say that. Note that none of the sources I quoted above do in fact say that “Philosophy has some privileged use of reason over other disciplines”. These are your words. Nor do any of them say that “philosophy is defined by the use of reason”. These again are your words. There are reliable sources that say that Philosophy is defined by the way it makes use of reason, but that is different again. Precision in language is of the utmost importance in framing definitions or characterisations or explanations. To your last point, that we are dealing simple sentence here not an extended essay, well quite. All the more reason to be precise in our language. I also note you still haven’t answered my question about the footnote 4, the one which begins ‘"It is integral to the very idea of philosophy …’. It is a nonsense to reject the idea that reason and a critical approach are integral to philosophy, and yet retain the footnote. Are you then going to delete the footnote, as I suggested? It is also of the utmost importance that a footnote should agree with what it is a note too, i.e. it should say not much more and not much less than what it is a note too – it should merely make the same point but in a longer or more detailed way. To summarise: what we think or believe is not relevant to what goes in the article. What goes in the article should either faithfully reflect what the reliable sources say, or should be a best fit (if the sources disagree or differ, as they inevitably will). So our job is to understand what the sources say (i.e. interpret) and then come up with a ‘best fit’. Are you familiar with the idea of the least squares method? Think of the reliable sources as the points, and think of the wording in the article as the smooth line that we draw between the points. The line (the introduction) may not pass through any point (i.e. it may exactly resemble none of the reliable sources) nevertheless it will represent the least overall disagreement with the sources. Hope that finally makes my position clear. End of lecture. Peter Damian (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Well attempting to sort out what you are saying Peter, and attempting to stay reasonable. You seem to be agreeing with me on what the sources say. Namely that they support the centrality of reason to Philosophy. On that we are agreed. You may want to emphasise it more than I do but I don't think that is a major issue. As to footnotes etc we can sort those out when we have an agreed form of words. Sources on this are in any event difficult as the definition of what philosophy is depends a bit on which particular school of philosophy you belong to. For example I can easily find sources that say religion is superstition, and ones that say it is rational. In an introductory article we need a generic statement. I actually think the Blackburn quote does it without the need for an additional sentence. If we are to have it (something you originally wanted) then it needs to be non-partisan. --Snowded (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replying to your points in order. You now agree that, according to the sources, reason is “central” to philosophy. Note that some sources say that the use of reason is ‘distinctive’ of philosophy, which is a (slightly) different idea, if we are going to be precise, and I have argued that we should. Where we seem to profoundly disagree is in your claim that the sentence “[Philosophy’s] investigations use reason …” is the same in meaning as a sentence like “Reason is a distinctive feature of philosophy” or similar. You appear to be claiming that these sentences pretty much mean the same, or that the second one can be safely inferred from the first. By contrast, I am claiming that these sentences differ in meaning. Not only that, they are profoundly different in meaning. I can explain why they are different in meaning if you want. I am not going to now, because I don’t have much time and because I would like to agree on the point where we differ, because it is still not entirely clear to me, following the various conflicting points you have made, where our difference lies. On your point that the definition of philosophy depends what school you belong to, where is your evidence for that? If you read through the Talk:Philosophy/Quotations it is surprising how much different sources agree on the key points – namely that the distinctive mark of philosophy (as opposed to mythology, superstition &c) is “its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature”. Probably the point where they are most likely to disagree, by contrast, is on the view by Blackburn that you chose to open the article with, namely the psychologistic view that “the concepts by which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry.". A realist such as Frege would not agree with statement in the slightest, nor Scotus, or the early Wittgenstein, nor would I, for that matter (but my view is irrelevant). On your point that the Blackburn quote ‘does it’, well, enough said. Nor does Blackburn mention the widely-held view that reasoned argument is ‘distinctive’ of philosophy. Finally, on your point that the introduction should not be ‘partisan’, well quite. Hence my emphasis on the need for a ‘best fit’ with the available sources. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have always agreed that reason is central to philosophy - read what I write, I don't like rational due to its link to rationalism, or logic due to its link to views of language and syntax which have become controversial. Emphasising reason is something I would happily agree to, but not to say "'mainstay' of philosophical inquiry, or its 'ultimate goal', or its 'distinctive feature'" to quote you as I don't think that is accurate or necessary. The use of reason is actually central to all humanities and sciences by the way, it is not a special property of philosophy. Otherwise I think the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is a citable source and better than a University Prospectus. However there may be better ones. I don't Blackburn sees the need to spell out the use of reason, it is self evident given the other things he says. --Snowded (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry now you are making fun of me. I jolly well am reading what you are writing. Your version is "Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy." I.e. you are removing the reference to 'centrality', distinctive nature and so on. On your view that you don't want to use words like 'mainstay', or 'distinctive feature' and so on, you say you don't think that is accurate or necessary (Your words, my emphasis). Again, I don't care what you think. You need to reflect the sources. On your view that university prospectuses are not reliable sources, why not? Otherwise we can play the game of refusing to recognise any source as reliable unless it reflects your POV. But in any case, there are plenty of non-prospectus sources for 'distinctive' including Warburon and, in particular, Anthony Quinton in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. It's incredible actually how easy it is to evade WP:OR simply by selective use of sources, or re-interpreting them to mean what you want, or simply ignoring them altogether. Peter Damian (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've now inserted his 'longer' definition of philosophy into the article Anthony Quinton. This is not the first time I have used the Quinton gambit. The last time, I was defeated because it was claimed Quinton was from Oxford, and that Oxford was merely a 'village'. Also that Quinton was a peer of the realm, ergo not a real philosopher. I wonder what you will reply. Looking forward to it. Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter one of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and its something that you consistently seem to ignore in respect of several editors, or in the face of any disagreement. You accuse others of POV by selective citation, then proceed to provide your own "objective" integration of multiple citations that you select. You get yourself in a state over my wanting to say "reason" rather than "reason is central". For God's sake get some sense of proportion. You don't own this article, but you are reacting violently to any attempt to disagree with you. Given that you one consistent and repeated mantra is that you don't care what I think, then I think I will stop dignifying you with any substantial response. --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith? You say "I have always agreed that reason is central to philosophy". But do you recall saying "That said there is much baggage with the word rational, I don't think you can exclude empirical investigation etc. etc. " "[...] "rational" has too much baggage. How about something around 'coherence'?". I also tend to drop the assumption of good faith when someone tends not to answer direct questions or changes the subject. As you have done numerous times above, including directly above, where you fail to answer my point about Quinton. Earlier I produced a quote from Ayer in support of the assertion that philosophy is distinguished by its methods, and you again changed the subject. I'm sorry I do tend to make points forcefully. On the 'sense of proportion' bit, I do have a sense of proportion. Your change in wording fundamentally changes the sense of what the introduction says. So, for God's sake get some sense of proportion. You don't own this article. I think I will stop dignifying you with any substantial response. Peter Damian (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down and not get into discussing editors, we have to discuss content on this page.

No further problems. --NewbyG (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, Peter Damian. I do not think you understand my point. Let's find out.

Peter Damian's point: The fundamental method of philosophy is reason. The use of reason is a defining characteristic of philosophy, and philosophy is unique among disciplines in its careful use of reason.

I would appreciate it, if I have misunderstood your point, if you would clarify. I really am trying to understand. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Groan. This is not really my point. See my reply to Snowded above. The question is whether the proposed characterisation of philosophy is a ‘best fit’ to the reliable sources that we have access to. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This brings us one step closer. Now the question is, what is the "best fit" to the major sources. None of your sources mention "religion", "superstition", "faith", "revelation", or "analogy". Therefore, if we are going to stick to the sources, I suggest we avoid those words. All of your sources praise reason, so we want to say something about reason. What do we want to say about reason? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning is central to Philosophy - 'All' the sources brought up for discussion here support that point. Reasoning is 'central' to philosohy, reasoning is 'integral' to philosophy - I see no indication that any presently involved editors have ever been arguing against those propositions, certainly I haven't. --

As for the correct form of words to express that, I have said I am happy for now with 'wedded', which is too flowery for my personal taste, but better than 'appeal to reason' which is such a cliche. --NewbyG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Reason is central to philosophy," though I slightly prefer "Reasoned discourse is central to philosophy." Peter Damian? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

" I like that one (Reason is central to philosophy) --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually used the word 'reasoning' as compared to 'reason'. A tiny quibble, but is that distinction not worth considering? --NewbyG (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A list of proposals

This section is just a list of the proposed sentences for the lede. Please add your own proposal below. Tomorrow (Friday) we can begin to vote. Please vote here, but discuss above or below this section to avoid clutter.

1) Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.

2) Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions. Most philosophers agree that rational discourse is the proper method to address these questions.

3) The distinctive mark of philosophy is its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and its systematic nature.

4)<namely that the use of reason is not merely part of it, but distinguishes philosophy, or is central to it.> see above - (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

5) Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions.

6) No additional phrase

7) Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate and very general, concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value. In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. The central elements are logic,epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, ethics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and aesthetics.

(based on University of Cambridge Phil Dpt prospectus)--Philogo 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

8) We will have no sentences trying to define what philosophy is, or what its methods are, or the equivalent, in this article. --Philogo 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

9) There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

Enough is enough

OK inch by inch we now agree that, according to the sources, reason is both central and integral to philosophy. But not 'distinctive' although many reliable sources say this also. There is also the apparent problem that "None of your sources mention "religion", "superstition", "faith", "revelation", or "analogy" ". As a matter of fact I have plenty more sources for the former, and plenty of new ones for the latter. But as I say, enough is enough. I promised this morning to distance myself emotionally from this article, and I will now try to do that. It would make me more unpopular than ever, as an arrogant expert bastard from hell, which I don't want to be. And at this rate of progress it will take about three weeks of unfailing effort, little thanks and yet more hatred to get recognition that the sources really do support the existing version of the introduction. And I will have to go through exactly the same process again sometime next year or even this year when another bunch of editors arrive. Life is far too short. So, that really is it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't hate you, Peter Damian, and I know well how Wikipedia can stir the emotions. I know I get a little snarky at times, but no hate is involved and no disrespect intended. So, take pride in being an "arrogant expert bastard from hell". There are worse things to be. And, while I occasionally disagree with you, I am always glad to benefit from your expertise which, excepting only mathematics, is much greater than my own. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to show I mean it I myself have altered the introduction to reflect the views of the experts here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the apparently unsourced claim that philosophy is a method, pace Ayer, Wittgenstein, Warburton et alia. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is all the same to me...whether it is your own opinion or not. It is the argument itself that I wish to probe, though it may turn out that both I who question and you who answer are equally under scrutiny.

Plato, Protagoras, 333c

--Philogo 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean: what is the problem with religion, etc,? I see no reason to separate it from philosophy, in the context of esoteric mysticism; spirituality, etc.. Those are very [neo-]Platonic, but philosophy eventually degenerated from there and separated from Philosophy.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by philosophy eventually degenerated from there and separated from Philosophy? That there is philosophy & also Philosophy, the former once being part of the latter but then separated from it? If so how did Philosophy remain Philosophy if part of it, philosophy, separated from it? What do you mean by degenerated? How do you know that philosophy eventually degenerated from there and separated from Philosophy: when did it occur? Do you put this forward as historic fact or your own personal conjecture and value judgement? Please note this talk page lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. --Philogo 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(I was just replying to Peter but I guess your quote was some kind of reply to him.) Of course 'philosophy' is translatable to most languages, so I was not necessarily correct except the process of degeneration and sometimes regeneration always happens. When the Scholarchs twice stopped understanding and teaching what Plato taught, neo-Platonism gave way to a few reasonable philosophies for the next few centuries, but in modern times a lot of non-noetic bunk or halfway reasonable, unoriginal ideas have been called 'philosophy' or original.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Current introduction

I, for one, am now happy with the current introduction, and withdraw my call for a vote, since we seem to have reached a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly resembles a Wikipedia article more, now. Peter Damian (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we proceed with the vote--Philogo 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version. Votes in Wikipedia are a last resort if consensus cannot be achieved and at the moment there are more options than there are active editors! --Snowded (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not know Votes in Wikipedia are a last resort. An indication of preference then. I am not unhappy with the current version, but I do not think it the best, and think it could be improved. First impressions count.--Philogo 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My source on votes is here. Any specific suggestions on improvement? I thought we made a lot of progress with the use of "reason" and keeping it simple. --Snowded (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Yes we did make progress. There no hurry is there? I think that there was a fear that if we altered anything then an almight row would break out. Seems like anger comes from being over-defensive about a particular formulation, & taking it too personally. BTW if you look at the Cambridge Dic of Phil there is no entry for philosophy. But there is one on meta-philosophy. Well worth a read. I'd like to print out our proposals and just the lede to look at quietly; how do you do that do you know - that is avoid printing everything.--Philogo 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

: I don't see any great pressure, the current formulation is good and I think (with Peter) that the whole first section is a lot better. No idea how you print by the way other than cut and paste. --Snowded (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate it and loathe it. I was being ironic when I said "It certainly resembles a Wikipedia article more, now.", which it does, of course, in its currently fragmented and disconnected state. I suggest deleting the bit which says 'its investigations use reason', since nearly all academic disciplines use reason. By omitting how reason is distinctive to the way Philosophy answers the kind of question it tries to answer (and the second emphasis is key, here), you have missed the point of those sources which talk about 'distinctive', 'fundamental', &c. Can someone read the Quinton quote and explain to me what it means? If you understand his definition then you will understand the point I have been trying to make all along. Peter Damian (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

“ Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved. ibid ”

(indent)Quinton's definitions represent a particular perspective on Philosophy. I seem to remember an interesting interview between Magee and Quinton on Wittgenstein which elaborated on aspects of this. Quinton is using "rational and critical" in the context of a specific English tradition of philosophy. Personally I think it is arrogant to say that Philosophy as a discipline is distinguished by reason as that would imply that other disciplines are not self-reflective. That said I don't think the sentence adds greatly to the entry so I have no objection to its deletion ( see you have done that without discussion). I think Peter that we need to remember that the Wikipedia is not intended to be a Philosophy text book, it has a different function. So if it now looks like a Wikipedia article then I would say well done. Incidentally can I say again that it is bad form to simply delete something which has been under discussion. It could lead to an edit war. --Snowded (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(a) You say "I think it is arrogant to say that Philosophy as a discipline is distinguished by reason as that would imply that other disciplines are not self-reflective. " which shows you haven't understood the point Quinton is making. Read it carefully. Here I am, sounding like an arrogant bastard expert again. (b) This is not a particular perspective. Many other of the sources I have cited refer to this distinctiveness. E.g. "It is by its methods rather than its subject-matter that philosophy is to be distinguished from other arts or sciences" (Ayer). (c) I remember using this quote earlier and you replying that you weren't interested in Ayer's view or something like that. Can I once again remind you of WP:OR. I'm sorry I was blunt above when I said I didn't care what you think. I was simply trying to drive home the point that we aren't interested in your personal views as such, not for the purposes of writing an article like this. What we say has to reflect a balanced view of the sources. (d) We are not writing a textbook, we are writing an encyclopedia. The quote from Quinton comes from an encyclopedia not a textbook.

You keep assuming that if someone disagrees with you they are failing to understand something or lack suitable qualifications. I think the Quinton quote has value within its tradition. However we had previously agreed that "reason" represented a reasonably compromise to avoid associations with rationalism etc. Your remarks on personal views are offensive. I am being reasonably honest in declaring my position in conversations on the talk page in the interests of transparency. Your position and the tradition in which you situate yourself is evident in the positions you propose. What matters here is we avoid a POV and negotiate something (HERE ON THE TALK PAGE NOT THROUGH EDIT WARS) that is NPOV. I think you were mistake to arbitrarily delete a sentence to which you could have proposed amendments that would have satisfied some of the points you are making above and which would probably gain agreement. For that reason and to make the point that discussions take place on the talk page I have reversed your change. --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In summary, you must first understand the point Quinton is making, which you won't unless you read it very very carefully and trying and follow the logical point he is making. He is not contrasting philosophy with other disciplines, as you seem to think. And any introduction must reflect a balanced view of the sources, in accordance with WP:OR. Sorry, again, this is not intended to cause offence. Peter Damian (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the intention it does cause offence and is not accurate. See comments above --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am also now tempted to remove the quote by Blackburn which you put in originally, since you are now implying that we cannot use sources which have a "particular perspective on philosophy". Blackburn's view that philosophy is the analysis of concepts is certainly accepted by a significant majority of philosophers. But a significant minority, if not a majority, would disagree. Once again, a balanced view of the sources is required. Peter Damian (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We need a citable source which is as neutral as possible. I used the Oxford/Blackburn version. You should feel free to find others and argue the case here. I am not impressed with your ability to change your mind on previous agreements but it is of course your privilege. --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because of the selective way that sources are now being used (see WP:OR for an explanation of what 'synthesis' means), I have slapped on a few tags. Now this really is starting to look more like a Wikipedia article. No offence intended. Peter Damian (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to maintain those tags you need to argue a case on this page. I will be interested to see how you justify the OR tag. --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of OR tag

None of the material which has been edited recently lacks citation, or has not been subject to discussion. Evidence needs to be presented to justify its inclusion --Snowded (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. On arguing a case for OR, I have already done that. WP:OR Where sources disagree, it is OR to selectively cite a view that you agree with, while ignoring others whose view you disagree with. You say that the Oxford/Blackburn view is neutral - no it is not. I have already stated that while the Blackburn view is held by a significant minority, there is a significant minority who would disagree. WP:OR requires that we represent all significant sources, giving priority to those sources which are a balanced reflection of all views.

In wiki terms a cited source is not OR simple matter of fact. It is open to you to propose an alternative but quoting a Philosophical Dictionary from a reputable publisher authored by a Professor at one of the leading Universities in the world is not OR. Do not assume that I agree with Blackburn (having had two major arguments with him over Deluze) but the purpose here is to create a cited source. Find another and argue the case here. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

2. On the point that you have misunderstood Quinton, we really are at an impasse here. To my mind it is obvious that you have misunderstood him, since you seem to think he is contrasting philosophy with other disciplines. Even a cursory reading of the Quinton quote shows he is not contrasting philosophy with other disciplines. Again, please try not to be offended, read carefully through it and try to understand what he means. I have tried to give a big hint by italicising the word 'discipline'. Another clue is what he is referring to by 'non-philosophical counterpart'. This is a clue to what he is contrasting, which will lead you understand the sense in which he, and many other philosophers who have tried to characterise philosophy, think its employment of reason is distinctive.

Peter I disagree with you in terms of the way you want to use Quinton. All you have to do is to come up with a form of words that would modify the existing sentence - try it you might get agreement --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

No, you were against the use of terms like 'distinctive', originally. Are you now comfortable that it can go in there, on the assumption that it can be made clearer what philosophy is being 'distinguished' from here? Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Please don't take offence. I know it is hard to take criticism, and I am trying to be as gentle as I can.

I have seen a few patronising and hypocritical comments in my time on WIkipedia but that takes the biscuit. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

4. I have reinserted the tag, in accordance with WP:OR.

Reversed, its the wrong tag. OR cannot related to a cited source. You might want to tag for balance but again you should argue the case here rather than just edit the page. You do not own that page, you have an obligation to use the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong here, but I am not sure. WP:WEIGHT is the policy in question, and since that is part of WP:NPOV I am reinserting the tag. In academia there is the concept of 'selective citation', which is the problem here. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have put in the POV template, which I think is correct for WEIGHT. Peter Damian (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

5. It strikes me that since the points that Quinton et al are making, while obvious to trained philosophers, are not obvious even to educated but untrained readers, and for that reason the introduction does need work. It needs to be accessible to a general audience. Peter Damian (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So suggest some words that will be NPOV and understandable. There is good will here although you seem determined to assume that people who don't agree with you are in some way intellectually deficient. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of that. I simply said you did not understand the Quinton quote. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Its how you are coming across Peter

POV Tag

Just over a week ago Peter Damian accepted the current Oxford quote with the addition of a sentence referencing reason and the need for all arguments to be examined. We have now had an extensive discussion over the form of the sentence with Peter withdrawing from the discussion, then deleting the sentence, then re-entering the discussion and now adding a POV tag in respect of the Oxford quote. In addition an expert tag has been added by Peter.

Apologies for this. My position as a veteran of many years on this article - I was invovled as long ago as the Larry Sanger days - is that anyone who gets involved in this page is fundamentally insance, and needs their head examined. The inconsistencies you are seeing in my behaviour are largely the result of conflict between the rational side of me which tells me not to get involved (as I say, I am working on a very difficult translation project), and the mad side which somehow still believes that it is possible to make some headway, despite all the evidence to the contrary. By all means remove the POV tag. Peter Damian (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the introduction has to provide a cited source or sources. At the moment we have the Oxford Dictionary which has to be regarded as authoritative. There is no reason why we should not either (i) find another similar authoritative source which is more acceptable to the group as a whole or (ii) maybe quote two contrasting authoritative sources. The Columbia History of Western Philosophy for example opens thus "Philosophy is the attempt to give an account of what is true and what is important based on a rational assessment of evidence and arguments rather than myth, tradition, bald assertion, oracular utterances, local custom, or mere prejudice" Given that this seems closer to some or Peter's passions one compromise would be to insert this definition as well as the Oxford one (thus trans-atlantic alternatives) at the start and delete the sentence which is not based on cited material. How does that strike people as a suggestion? --Snowded (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that one very much. I was going to suggest removing 'religion', which is clearly contentious, and replacing it with 'mysticism', 'mythology' or similar. Peter Damian (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The is also a rather nice Islamic one which from memory goes "Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of science". I think its Sufi but not sure. --Snowded (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK there is a large class of quotes which aim at an informal or epigrammatic characterisation of philosophy, such as this one, also the one by Russell in the quote box which you sadly removed earlier. Rick Norwood has a store of these. I think they are useful as amusement, but I think more rigorous formulations should be used in the main article or the introduction. I'm not sure what the Islamic one actually means. What does it mean? Peter Damian (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider the proposals!

I suggest that more would be acheived if the discussion were based on the (currently nine) proposals listed above. There is nothing to prevent the addition there of furher proposals--Philogo 10:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is merit in that, but Peter has now challenged the main definition as well. Given that all nine would be consensus statements I am inclined to go with a second cited definition (see above). However the discussion is open to all, including those of us who have clearly failed to understand AQ. --Snowded (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is nothing to stop an editor adding further proposals.--Philogo 11:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Or synthesising those proposals or suggesting an alternative, or seeking consensus to a general set of principles before drafting. However, given all of the previous discussion I think we are a lot safer sticking to citations. --Snowded (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 8) We will have no sentences trying to define what philosophy is, or what its methods are, or the equivalent, in this article. has the merit of avoiding these issue and these bad-temepered metaphilsophical discussions. The cambridge Dictionary of Philospohy (wisely in my veiw) offer no "definition" of philosophy, but has a interesting article on metaphilosophy. Those really interested in this partilcular metaphilosophical issue could edit an article metaphilosophy--Philogo 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) PS and we would delete the first and third sentences.--Philogo 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 9) There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations has the advantages of (a) truth (b) numerous citations in support (c) refers the interested reader to relevant materials (d) does not presuppose that there either is any "definition" of philosophy or what that definition is. --Philogo 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)PS instead of the current first and third sentences. --Philogo 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the {{POV}} tag is fully justified regarding the lead.--Philogo 11:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the POV has some justification. I think you are suggesting deleted the Oxford Dictionary sentence (which is cited) and the final sentence "Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions.[4]". If that is the case I oppose. In fact the middle sentence is duplicated in the next section and could go. There has to be something up front and I think the only way of doing this, to avoid disputes over words, is to simply quote and cite 2/3 introductory statements (which is what I think the Oxford quote is, not a definition) from acknowledged international authorities together with an opening clear statement that there is no agreed definition. We have one introductory statement from the UK one there at the moment, one US suggested by above and ideally we should add in from from Asia. --Snowded (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are agreeable that the lede should say that there are no agreed definitions would you support the wording in proposal 9.? IF we agreed that that was OK THEN we could consider whether we need say more. So I am proposing that the first sentence of the lead should be, proposal 9:

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

My suggestion is that the first sentence should be as per proposal 9 (or something similar) and then be followed by 1/3 sentence quotes from cited Dictionaries of Philosophy as illustrations. There are three there, but I think we could add some more and it would be a valuable asset for people coming to this page (who will generally not be professional philosophers. My argument for dictionaries is that these represent authoritative attempts to synthesis the field. If we quoted every definition by every philosophical school then there would be too many. See the section below--Snowded (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well taking that a bit at a time do we agree that the first sentence shall be :

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations --Philogo 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quinton's theme

I like the Quinton quote a lot. I do not find it hard to understand, but rather very clear and to the point. I would be happy to see it in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have a few quotes then I would agree, both the long and the short come from Oxford_Companion_to_Philosophy so fits into the citation pattern. I also agree that its not difficult to understand .... --Snowded (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be direct quotes. WP:WEIGHT has suggestions on how to blend and balance views where they are different. We should agree on the fundamental points each source is making, then achieve a balance. I think there was some confusion about the meaning of the Quinton quote, i.e. confusion about the sense in which the use of reason 'distinguishes' philosophy, so any wording would have to avoid this. There is also another sense in which the use of reason distinguishes philosophy, and this would somehow have to be accomodated. Where we do seem to have made some progress, is in agreeing the need to balance the various sources in some way. Peter Damian (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good! You were right, Peter Damian, I did not understand the first sense in which you asserted that reason "distinguishes" philosophy. I do now, thanks to the Quinton quote, which explains that very nicely. Now, if I could understand the second sense in which reason "distinguishes" philosophy, I would be happy. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sense 1 The Quinton sense is that there are questions like 'what is the purpose of life', 'how did the universe begin', 'is there a God', 'is there life after death', which people often think about or discuss in bars or cocktail parties and so on, in an informal, unsystematic and uncritical way. These are the 'non philosophical counterparts'. Quinton is saying that philosophy is distinguished from these by its "explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature". I don't feel Snowded completely understood this point because of two remarks he made (i) that Quinton's definition "represents a particular perspective on Philosophy". Surely not - one of the commonest complaints of professional philosophers is the misconception that philosophy is something easy you can chat about in a pub, without serious attention to sources, logical argument, analysis and so on. (ii) Snowded said that "it is arrogant to say that Philosophy as a discipline is distinguished by reason as that would imply that other disciplines are not self-reflective". This also implies a misunderstanding. Quinton's point is not to contrast philosophy with other disciplines. Rather, he is contrasting the philosophical approach to cocktail-party questions, with the cocktail-party approach to the same questions. For the cocktail-party approach is not a 'discipline' at all. It is merely drunken and informal.

its an interesting question. Its easy to say that in contrast with a cocktail party method philosophy is distinguished by reason (although some cocktail parties could compete with some of the seminars I remember). However to extend that into the definition of philosophy is to imply that the questions addressed by philosophy are otherwise only handled by cocktail parties. In fact several sciences and many humanities also address the same subjects as philosophy using reason albeit from the perspective of their discipline. --Snowded (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I am merely explaining the meaning of the Quinton sense of "distinct". Many other sources agree with his view, and many real life philosophers hold it. If you think other sources disagree with this, please cite them and we can consider them. The view you have just outlined may well be correct, but you do not count as an authoritative source (and neither do I - I am just gathering the sources and explaining them where necessary). Peter Damian (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note also that if you want to show there are sources that disprove proposition A, it is not enough to find a source that does not mention A, or claim it, or whatever. You have to find a source where it is explicitly claimed that not-A. For example, when I objected to the neutrality of the Blackburn source, it was not because there were other sources which do not mention philosophy being about 'concepts'. It was because there are many sources where it is claimed that philosophy is about things in reality, not just concepts. Indeed, you can find some of them in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. That is most important. Once again, it is not what I think that must go into the article. Even if what I think is true, and even if I can give powerful arguments for it. We must provide reliable sources that support our claim, and we must respect the balance and weight of the different sources. That is the essence of Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking me to prove or why? If its that other disciplines address the issues of philosophy then that is fairly easy. A lot of cognitive science for example is specially addressing issues of consciousness. However I am not sure why. I am happy to accept that any Dictionary of Philosophy is going to some degree to be biased. Equally I am certain that we can not agree a neutral definition of philosophy. I have not read anything that would contradict a proposition that philosophy uses reason, but I could find opposition to "rational" unless it was qualified as "not-rationalism". Hence my suggestion that we provide a few one/two sentence citable sources. Blackburn, Columbia, the Quinton short version with a preliminary statement that There is no agreed definition, but here are some citable sources. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking you to prove anything. I am simply asking you to back up any claim you make with reference to reliable sources. Also, you need to apply WP:WEIGHT to be sure that the source supports a significant or majority type view. Is that reasonable?Peter Damian (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the above Peter, I am suggesting a series of cited sources some of which use the word rational. If you want to get into free form text then its is going to be hard if not impossible to get agreement as multiple sources can be cited. I'll find a few extreme empiricists to make the point. I don;t think that is the way forward. Two/three short definitions from different sources all cited. Please respond to that. --Snowded (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Using a selection of cited sources would be messy. Also, the real difficulty is to agree which sources best reflect WP:WEIGHT. A form of words is the least of our difficulties. My suggestion would be to come up with a list of the main claims that have been made about philosophy (I already have compiled such a list) then come to an agreement per WP:WEIGHT. I'm still not sure whether you agree to the idea of balancing like this. Can you explicitly provide the cites - I have two of them, where is the Columbia. Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] here they are (1) "The shortest definition, and it is quite a good one, is that philosophy is thinking about thinking. That brings out the generally second-order character of the subject, as reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking - formation of beliefs, claims to knowledge - about the world or large parts of it. ", "the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth etc. In philosophy, the concepts by which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry.", ""[Philosophy] is the attempt to give an account of what is true and what is important based on a rational assessment of evidence and arguments rather than myth, tradition, bald assertion, oracular utterances, local custom, or mere prejudice" Peter Damian (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sense 2 The second sense in which the use of reason 'distinguishes' philosophy is that philosophy is not just about the big, cocktail-party questions. 'It excludes nothing from its examination, but includes all things in heaven and earth, man and God, in its enquiry'. I.e. unlike the other departmental sciences and subjects, philosophy is not restricted to any particular subject or question. It has no distinctive subject-matter at all. The only thing which distinguishes it is its systematic, critical, methodical, rational approach.

I can agree with everything you say with the exception of the final sentence. Given that we are talking of the whole compass and history of philosophy you can say reason and critical, possible systematic, method is superfluous given those words, rational has too many associations. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are applying your own POV. It may be correct. Can I remind you again that Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not your own beliefs. Please back up this assertion with some reasoned arguments based on sources. Given that a significant number of sources use the term 'rational', find some sources that say that the method of philosophy is not rational. Also 'rational' is an adjective, 'reason' is a noun. You are objecting to the use of an adjective, but not the noun directly related to it? Please explain. Peter Damian (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to my earlier response. Please read and respond to the suggestion I have made, rather than the one you think I may be making --Snowded (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Which 'earlier response' is that? This page is very busy now. And I wasn't replying to a point you were making. I was responding to the fact that you repeatedly make claims that you don't back up using reliable sources. Peter Damian (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points above Peter, you said the same thing twice. Oh and please stop making this personal and throwing out accusations. --Snowded (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, which two points? Given the length of this thread, which are the two points you are making? Peter Damian (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The two senses of 'distinct' are obviously connected, but they are also obviously different. The first sense requires that philosophy has a distinct subject matter, from which it is separately distinguished from other approaches (cocktail party, mysticism, mythology). The second sense requires that philosophy has no distinct subject-matter at all. Peter Damian (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this Quinton's theme one othe nione proposals?--Philogo 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter Damian. This is the sense that I was objecting to before. 'It excludes nothing from its examination, but includes all things in heaven and earth, man and God, in its enquiry,' sounds good, and taken in context I think it clearly means that nothing is too big for philosophy. But taken literally, it says that nothing at all is excluded from philosophy, provided only that the method used to study it is reason. But, in that case, all of science and mathematics is philosophy. This was once true, but is true no longer. How do we help the reader of this article understand the more specialized use of the term "philosophy" today. I would hate to have the article suggest that "philosophy" is what's left over after the scientists and mathematicians have picked all the good parts. The only way I can think to avoid this is to say something about philosophy tackling the "big questions". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

so-called major field 'philosophy of mind'

Who ever defined 'philosophy of mind' (as if it is not part of metaphysics) as a major field? According to the soul article, and what I have read before, the mind form is only part of the soul system of forms which has 2 other parts: emotions/spirit and desire. Of course emotions/spirit and desire are not necessarily on the level of mind/nous--noeta/noema, the latter of which only may be forms and emotions/spirit and desire may be doxa. However, there is arguably an ideal human [system of] form[s] which includes the forms the soul consists of. The proper name for the metaphysical field is 'philosophy of consciousness', consciousness including the mental/noetic and vital/biological (which so-called philosophy of mind says may be unified,) as well as the emotions/'spirit' and desire in between (so is the former pair unified that simply?) Philosophy of consciousness also seems to include the ideal system of forms of reasonable intelligence, Logos, which is higher spiritual and has to do with 'The One'/monad 'Good'/Agathon 'Virtue'.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear agreement on the branches of philosophy. It therefore follows that to avoid NPOV any major field recognised somewhere should be listed. When I edited this field I used links to other Wikipedia pages. Also you will find Philosophy of Mind as a section in many a bookshop, text books and university courses. Snowded (signed by PD).

Agreed. The philosophy of mind was always a separate branch (just as Aristotle's De Anima was a separate book). It is sometimes put under Metaphysics, but many sources list it separately. Peter Damian (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-applying tag

I am re-applying the tags to the article. This is not a trivial issue, nor is it about one word. I would like to reach agreement here that even on the talk page, we will try not to give our own views about what philosophy is. We will rely on authoritative sources. Also (to avoid the inevitable cherry-picking and selective use of sources) we will apply WP:WEIGHT, meaning we try to strike a balance between different sources, where they differ. Can you say below if you agree with this or not. Peter Damian (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

" The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each "

• Support. Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose its trivial as Newbyguesses said when he removed them. Also Peter Damian is being inconsistent saying one thing one day, then reversing by the next. --Snowded (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, what you are opposing is the bold statement above. You are disagreeing that "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each "?Peter Damian (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

opposing your process Peter, you are exhausting. See below --Snowded (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I vote in favor of truth, justice, and the American Way. But then, I'm a strange visitor from another planet. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A sense of proportion

Reference the above suggestion. The sheer number of significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources is vast, to summarise them a major enterprise. This has in part been attempted in the various Dictionaries of Philosophy. My proposal is to take two/three of those (possibly more) in short form together with a prefix to the effect that there is no clear agreement. So far we have two from Oxford (Blackburn and Quinton) and one from Columbia. There are in all (I think) no more than half a dozen such books so using one or two sentences from each would be appropriate to an encyclopaedia. If Peter wants to write a text book fine, I might even buy it but this is not the place. --Snowded (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to do some work on it. All I am asking is that you accept, as per above that "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ". If you disagree, then the process is pretty easy from there: we take it to mediation. Peter Damian (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] At the moment I disagree with your proposal on the 3 sources mentioned. These are a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. Peter Damian (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter I am not playing word games with your statement. I do not think it is viable for the editors of this page (let alone one of them) to summarise all the views of history without demonstrating a POV. I thus propose citing authoritative published sources. One of those was your suggestion, one you accepted a couple of weeks ago, one you said you liked. Please. --Snowded (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this one of the nine proposals, or an additinal one, or nothing to do with the lede? --Philogo 12:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

elaborating

OK here is my draft, references to be cited properly in the final formatting not perfect

The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[5][6][7] There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one. The following quotes represent perspectives from various Dictionaries on the subject

• "the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth etc. In philosophy, the concepts by which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry." Blackburn, Simon (1994). "Philosophy", The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• ... philosophy is thinking about thinking. That brings out the generally second-order character of the subject, as reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking - formation of beliefs, claims to knowledge - about the world or large parts of it. -- Quinton The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, p. 666 (1st ed.)

• Philosophy is the attempt to give an account of what is true and what is important, based on a rational assessment of evidence and arguments rather than myth, tradition, bald assertion, oracular utterances, local custom, or mere prejudice. Columbia history of Western Philosophy''

I have removed the list of branches as that follows in the next section. There are a few other dictionaries, but not many and I would not object to them been listed as well. By providing these citable summaries we provide a resource to people coming to this article that indicates the range of thinking. We also use sources from established publishers using multiple authors with high reputations in the field, This is preferable to attempting a summary of sources ourselves. --Snowded (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the three you have given per WP:WEIGHT, which is one of the most important policies to be applied, but you explicitly oppose here. I do not disagree with any of the three quotes, but you have given two quotes that support the 'second-order' view of philosophy (Quinton and Blackburn) and only one giving the 'distinguished by rationality'. This does not represent a balanced view of the subject. It does not represent the view held by a significant number, if not the majority of sources, that reason (or rationality) is a 'mainstay', 'distinguishing feature' and so on. You also miss out the main branches which most introductions to the subject mention (see Definition of philosophy for this). So I definitely do not support this. Peter Damian (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest calling in some administrator help on this one. Peter Damian (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And have done so here. I will abide by whatever decision is taken. Peter Damian (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What I have done here is to take cited authoritative sources from groups of academics paid by reputable publishers to summarise the field. This is preferable to you or a couple of editors on this page attempting to so the same. I have researched two, and also taken one you found. Why not track down a couple more and put them up? I am not arguing that those three should be the final set, I am putting together a sustainable approach consistent with Wikipedia Philosophy. And please attempt consistency of your views over time . You introduced Quinton, you accepted Blackburn, you liked the Columbia one. The approach I am suggesting allows some additions as we find them. You can put this up for mediation if you want (and can gain consent from other editors. --Snowded (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this one of the nine proposals or a tenth one?--Philogo 12:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The nine proposals were for alternative sentences to follow the Blackburn quote. Peter having originally supported that quote is now saying it is a POV. So I am suggesting a different approach. We take Option 9 as an opening sentence, then follow it with several "Philosophical DIctionary" definitions. --Snowded (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I suggested one (Quinton), I agree with another (Columbia), I agree with Blackburn. Indeed, I introduced the Blackburn a few years back. This was defeated in a major edit war. This is why I am saying WP:WEIGHT is essential. Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, then find a couple of others that balance and we will have something we can use. --Snowded (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm fundamentally not agreeing to the idea of sticking a bunch of different quotations together in the way you suggest. That is madness. Again, WP:WEIGHT. That is Wikipedia policy. Peter Damian (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Using a limited set of authoritative quotes to establish balance is a sensible policy. It entirely supports WP:WEIGHT and it is clearly not madness. Please stop venting off like this it is in breech most Wiki policies. --Snowded (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ah so you finally agree with WP:WEIGHT? You said above that you didn't. That is fine. That is all I wanted you to agree to. Peter Damian (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter I refused to play your word games with your motherhood and apple pie statement. I did not reject WP:WEIGHT. For someone so set on the critical use of reason you sow a remarkable tendency not to read what people say. As to your new proposal one glance says that a materialist would argue it was a POV. You really think that you can do a better job than the editors of various Philosophical directories? --Snowded (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then show you mean it and give me a reliable source to say which 'materialist' would disagree with which parts of the introduction. And we can't do a better job without taking one, and only one verbatim. Your proposal to put all the different possible views would be impossible. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typically materialists would reject the Realist idea that there are fundamental philosophical truths. But that is catered for. Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I have proposed above that the first sentce shall be as option 9, i.e.

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

Is this agreeable with all? --Philogo 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Nowhere is that sentence to be found in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. Please also note moving it to a subdirectory of the main article will result in it being deleted (not by me - see the message). Peter Damian (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bit better would be: There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see talk:Philosophy/Quotations

--Philogo 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to refine it, lets see if we have agreement to the overall approach

[[Philosophy/Quotations]] duly created by copy from [[Talk:Philosophy/Quotations]] Idea is after agreeing on the first sentence we can disuss if further sentences are needed and desirable and if so what they should be. (Crack a big rock by cracking it into smaller rocks and crack each smaller rock in turn)--Philogo 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is to keep to the one sentence, not add further ones that we compose, but instead quote authoritative sources. Look at the entry in italics above it is a proposal for the full introduction. --Snowded (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but do you that the first sentence shall be as option 9, i.e.

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

--Philogo 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be the second line after the reference to the linguistic origins, and then followed by some sample summary quotations from authoritative sources. Peter is pursuing another line which assumes a NPOV summary can be achieved. I don't think he can, but engagement with him given the inconsistencies is energy sapping and I have to decide if it is worth the energy. --Snowded (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New proposed introduction

New proposal below. It reflects most of the major views that philosophers have held about their subject, starting with Aristotle. Each section can be cited many times over. Most importantly, it reflects WP:WEIGHT. Every major view is represented, without giving undue weight to any (e.g. the Blackburn view that philosophy is about concepts is mentioned, but in the context of a division of views).

I have mentioned the contrast with religion, but in a way that does not disparage it (indeed, Aquinas can be cited).

The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Traditionally, philosophy is the search for fundamental truths that are not derived from other truths: the 'first causes and principles of things'. [Aristotle Metaphysics 993a]. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of approaching the same questions (such as mythology, mysticism, religion) by not accepting any authority higher than reason. [Licet ea quae sunt altiora hominis cognitione, non sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda, sunt tamen, a Deo revelata, suscipienda per fidem - Aquinas]. Its most distinctive feature is the use of a systematic, critical approach to problems (as opposed to scientific experiment or mystical intuition). Philosophers are deeply divided on whether philosophical truths concern (i) the nature of reality (Realism) (ii) the concepts by which we approach the world (Conceptualism) (iii) the language we use to talk about the world (Nominalism). The main branches concern the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Objection 1 (from Snowded) - materialists would regard this as POV. Reply: (a) citation required for this (b) materialists are typically positivists, and positivists typically reject varieties of philosophical Realism. Peter Damian (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatted and referenced version in draft here: Talk:Philosophy/Definition. Peter Damian (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Objection, this is Peter's take on the history of philosophy, it is close to original research and I stand by my original proposal to include a set of cited sources from authorities in the field rather than attempt to replicate the work of leading Philosophers commissioned by reputable publishers. I have struck through Peter's objection 1 as he is taking a sentence in isolation from an earlier post. I object to the approach of attempting to draft a text of this type --Snowded (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply: (1) taking a set of cited sources is just as difficult because of the problem of not applying undue weight. All the sources are cited and I can provide a massive set quotes to support each and every statement. I have started here. To call this a 'take' on the history of philosophy is a bit extreme. I took the second sentence from Stace's magisterial history of Greek philosophy, so it is not my take. Neither is any of the rest. It is an attempt to balance, per WP:WEIGHT, a large number of different sources. Peter Damian (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowded's actual words were "As to your new proposal one glance says that a materialist would argue it was a POV." Peter Damian (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter you are impossible. Full quote "Peter I refused to play your word games with your motherhood and apple pie statement. I did not reject WP:WEIGHT. For someone so set on the critical use of reason you sow a remarkable tendency not to read what people say. As to your new proposal one glance says that a materialist would argue it was a POV. You really think that you can do a better job than the editors of various Philosophical directories? " The last sentence is the most important. You can create any paragraph on philosophy in which each sentence can be cited in isolation. --Snowded (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, taking what you regard as your most important point. I have looked at the following articles: History, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Politics. None of these take the unusual and idiosyncratic and plain daft, in my view, approach, of selecting a bunch of different sources and stringing them together. So I am rejecting it flat out. Please examine with your expert philosophical eye my proposal, which is a fair and balanced reflection of the different sources, and give me your critical reasoned judgment. And don't call me impossible. Peter Damian (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Impossible was affectionate Peter and its fairly mild in comparison with some of the things you had said. I don't think it will be possible to formulate a set of words that will define Philosophy hence my suggestion of multiple citable sources. I love the way you reject someone else's idea and then expect them to go along with your latest proposal. Sorry Peter I am "rejecting it flat out" at least for today. I am very very weary with the manner of your engagement here. --Snowded (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking your points in order, by sentence. The first sentence says you are affectionate towards me, that's OK. Your second sentence says it is not possible to formulate a set of words defining (or let's say characterising philosophy), my reply is that I have just done it above. I also did it last year with an expert philosopher from a highly-regarded university, that version was stable for a long time. Moreover is the version Trinity College Dublin used for their departmental website. What I find most frustrating about your approach is your point-blank refusal to discuss reasons or content. It was nice when you made the point about materialism, I thought for a moment about that and checked some sources and replied. I wish you could adopt a similar approach i.e. give reasons and argument without (it seems) taking things personally. Your third sentence says I reject other people's ideas and expect them to go along with mine. Well, I always give reasons for rejecting proposals - the latest reason was that having looked at a number of flagship articles, none of them use the multiple-citation approach. Your fourth sentence says you are 'rejecting flat out'. Fine, but give reasons. Take each sentence one by one and say what the problem is. That will be fine by me. Your fifth sentence says you are very weary of my manner of engagement. YOU are weary? I've just spent half of the nicest day of the year cooped up in front of a computer screen. I was mad to try. Well, it's tiring, no doubt. But why not reach for some books and read some of the sources I have provided, rather than getting weary or upset? That would be a more constructive way of carrying on. Peter Damian (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: leave it for today, print out my version, compare it to the sources we have in the subdirectory. See how many of the sources support what is in my version, and how many do not. Then reply in itemised format. That would be a really constructive way of getting ahead. Peter Damian (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Matthew 7:5 --Snowded (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very unkind. I ALWAYS give reasons. And if you don't think they are sufficient, ask me. For example above I tried to address each point you had made, sentence by sentence. I've given a specific reason for rejecting your proposal. The logical way would be to address that reason with a reply, and so on. That last remark (via Matthew 7:5) was really vicious. Peter Damian (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion Peter. I quoted 'rejecting flat out' straight back at you. Your reasons given were e "I'm fundamentally not agreeing to the idea of sticking a bunch of different quotations together in the way you suggest. That is madness". You dispense sweeping judgements with perjorative language and then require critical engagement with your POV in return. Sorry, but Matthew 7:5 is accurate. I am leaving this for a day with a view to deciding if I have the energy to engage with someone who agrees something one day, changes their opinion the next and is unprepared to engage with ideas other than his own. --Snowded (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

History, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Politics Peter Damian (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This proposed introduction seems to have merit; it deserves some further scrutiny though in case some inadvertant defect becomes apparent with the wording. I am going to thank again User:Peter Damian for providing expert attention to this article. I would like to ask Peter if, through having given such expert attention to the body of the article in recent times, it is perhaps no longer appropriate for the 'expert attention' tag to be in place at the top of this article? --NewbyG (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag is still appropriate. None of the changes discussed here have been implemented. Peter Damian (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Newby - the main point of disagreement is whether we use only citations in the introduction, or not. See Snowded's suggestion. That needs to be agreed. I have argued that we should not, because there is no precedent for this (that I know of) in Wikipedia. And many other reasons. Quotes strung together look clumsy. There is still the difficulty of deciding which quotes, and so on. Peter Damian (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Briefly, are there any major problems or sore points anywhere within the body of the article i.e. problems other than with the introductory paragraph(s)? --NewbyG (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The section on Realism and nominalism needs some work. The other sections need reviewing for balance. Some obscure schools of philosophy need trimming, possibly, but I'm not an expert and can't advise. Also, I really think the non-Western philosophy sections should have separate treatment worthy of their status. This article is clearly about 'Western' philosophy. Peter Damian (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems then we know where we are when the lead section is sorted out. --NewbyG (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag will be appropriate if we adopted this new proposed introduction.--Philogo 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Variation on a theme

Could the lead section begin :

The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” The main branches of philosophy concern the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

and then continue as per the draft? --NewbyG (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Call for consensus

I propose that the first sentence of the lede shall be

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

--Philogo 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a sardonic comment here. Once enough people agree on a definition of a subject (OR its method) rather than arguing about it, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes a new subject. Science springs to mind as an example (which used to be natural philosophy). Philosophy is all about discussion and disagreement, even about its definition. 70.92.74.178 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are being sardonic, I think you are being accurate. The nature of the subject means that any definition or summary of the field will be (i) supported by citations but will remain (ii) a POV. Its why we can't treat the introduction in the same was as other articles. Any summary text will have so many qualifications and variations it will be meaningless. Best to acknowledge reality and reflect that by providing some of the diversity in the introduction. Hence my earlier suggestion. --Snowded (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Philogo and Snowded are falling prey to a version of the continuum fallacy (a nominalist favorite): because there is some fuzziness or disagreement about a definition, therefore the concept is indefinable. Look over the list of definitions Peter Damian has collated. Only an obstinate tree-seer would miss the shapely forest they define. (And yes, I like the proposed introduction, though the introduction of the realist-conceptualist-nominalist split so early is overly technical.) 271828182 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiresome but typical. Philosophy as a subject has coherence and some common understandings and can therefore be taught. But that description requires some recognition that you cannot reach a summary statement for an article like this which is other than POV. When others of greater repute than Peter attempt it in Dictionaries, Peter is happy to say that they are not balanced but not to worry he can come along and create a shapely forest (not his words) which will achieve what others have failed to do. Do you really think that the realist-conceptualist-nominalist split summarises all perspectives on philosophy? Your opening phrase suggests that the perspective of those against a definition is "nominalist", so you are immediately saying that there is a perspective on philosophy which differs. POV good friend, POV. You may like it, Peter may write a good book or article with it, but its POV. --Snowded (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See History, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Politics Peter Damian (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

: Two fallacies for one here. 271828182 claims that your argument is a version of the continuum fallacy (which it certainly is). You reply with a restatement of the continuum fallacy, see also Loki's Wager, while at the same time failing to reply to 271828182’s objection of continuum fallacy (Straw man), or possibly Ignoratio elenchi. Peter Damian (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tedious Peter, playing common room games. 271828182 makes an assertion which does not represent any reasonable interpretation of what I am saying. I reply by restating the case and obviously failed to communicate any difference. I will respond overall in the next day or so when I have time, and then determine if further investment is worth the time. Giving you a 101 lecture in modern materialism may or may not be worth the effort (and that is from someone who studied Aquinas by the way) --Snowded (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, I await your clarification, since I have re-read your reply to me several times and still perceive in it no argument substantively different from the following:

"Experts disagree about the definition of philosophy; therefore, all definitions of philosophy are POV."

The implicit premise is very dubious, I hope you'll agree. Also, the extent of the disagreement in the premise is, I would argue, being much exaggerated. Don't take it personally, but this line of argument reminds me of creationist tactics to argue that all scientific thinking is inherently "POV". 271828182 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard not to take that personally and a pretty silly example that gives me little confidence in going forward. Your statement of my position is a strawman. --Snowded (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Please set me straight by correctly stating your position, and showing how I have misstated it. 271828182 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please state your position and show how 271828182 has misstated it. The biggest obstacle to progress at the moment is that any comment I make on any of Snowded's assertions, and he replies I have misstated or misinterpreted it. Even when I use the exact same sentence he says I have quoted the sentence out of context. So it is not unreasonable for to ask Snowded to explain what his position or argument is, so we can comment on it. Peter Damian (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) As I have said several times I am taking a short day or so wikibreak to think about this and come back with a considered position. Having invested a week of my time in a one to one dialogue with Peter to no great effect (and one of the worst experiences I have ever had in the wikipedia) and I reached the conclusion that an emergent discussion is impossible with you (Peter) and it requires a more considered and formal statement of a position. I'm going to do that and then take a position on what I do thereafter These latest set of sniping remarks indicate some of the issues this group has. I am also checking back on edits as I think we have a diversity issue here. Too many logicians and one inconsistent and temperamental medievalist (joke peter). I had not realised that was the context of a discussion and I need to frame my thinking accordingly. --Snowded (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice break. This article has a flag saying that the attention of an expert is required. I wonder if there is a wikipedia flag saying, "This article has the attention of too many experts." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that 271828182. On the realist/anti-realist distinction, the main reason for bringing that in so early was as a concession to those who point to the endless disagreement between philosophers about the subject-matter of philosophy. There is a long history of disagreement between those such as Ockham, Hobbes, Mill, the logical positivists generally, and the ordinary language philosophers, who see philosophical truth as being essentially about language, and realists such as Aristotle, Aquinas, and those in the realist modern tradition who favour a ‘return to metaphysics’ of some sort. On whether this split is reflected in the European tradition, I don’t know. I looked at the introductory chapters of Being and Nothingness and it struck me how dated it was – a strong nineteenth century phenomenological flavour – and perhaps you could argue that phenomenology is the modern equivalent of conceptualism. Also I am currently working on a translation of Scotus, an early work that may not be by Scotus at all, since it belongs to the group of misattributed works that Heidegger studied. But now I have strayed into OR. I know of very little of the European tradition since 1900 and I’ll try and keep my mouth shut, given my lack of knowledge. Peter Damian (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that the r/c/n distinction is a useful way of organizing the whole of western metaphysics. Phenomenology starts off as a (highly unstable) form of realism with the Logische Untersuchungen, only to rapidly decay into Kantian conceptualism in the Ideen and its epigones like Sartre. Heidegger, as usual, wants to have it all three ways: though his rhetoric militantly invokes realism, his arguments are very Kantian, and his conclusions are effectively nominalist. But "this page is not a forum for discussion about its topic".

My general worry about your proposed lede is that it is too technical overall (and not just in the sentence we've been discussing). In large part, as you point out, that is due to the carping on this page, which is unfortunate. Maybe all parties should take a break and try again in better faith, or with additional input from other expert editors. It is demoralizing to see how little ground has been gained over the previous go-round on this lede. 271828182 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you go back a week then there was general optimism that we had improved the article and there was only disagreement about one sentence. That ground has shifted, but it would be nice if we could get back to agreement. More editors would certainly be useful and few less patronising remarks (not to mention throwing out a creationist label) would help ease communication and consensus. --Snowded (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine; let's be civil. N.b. I did not label you a creationist, I merely pointed out that your argument above relies on similar fallacies. Naturally, you disagree. Okay, I could be wrong. But you have yet to show that, despite repeated dismissals of my criticisms. 271828182 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I can't see any logic in your interpretation, so I have made a couple (repeated is exaggeration) of attempts to restate a position. Now its obvious that I am not succeeding in this so as I said to Peter I am going to take a few days out, think about it and come back. I also think that we need a silent period for a bit as its got heated. I must admit that in all the pages I have edited this has been one of the most frustrating in terms of the nature of the participation. --Snowded (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I would like to give a more detailed reply to Snowded’s main argument, which I think is this: We should give list of quotations about philosophy, rather than the standard form of words used in all other Wikipedia ‘flagship’ articles, because the form-of-words approach is inherently POV, whereas the list-of-quotations approach is not. Since a number of Snowded’s objections above have been that I have misunderstood his arguments, or have not read them, or have quoted them out of context, can you confirm, please, that my representation of your argument is correct? To be absolutely clear, my representation of the argument is given in bold above. Snowded, if you think that is wrong, please say so and submit an amended version that represents your objection. Note the bold sentence has two parts. The first part is your recommendation about what we should do. The second part is the main reason you give to support this. Peter Damian (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow Peter at the earliest. I have two full days of teaching Tuesday and Wednesday in London and Warwick with a lot of travel between. Today is my only preparation day. --Snowded (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Actually I asked as a first step if you could confirm that the bolded sentence immediately above is a fair representation of (1) your claim and (2) your reason for making the claim. I am taking the unusual step of asking you to confirm this because of your habit of accusing me of the fallacy of quoting out of context. We don't want that. I am making every effort to be precise.Peter Damian (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And given past experience I am not happy for you to take sentence in isolation. Given past misinterpretations and game playing I want to think thorough at attempt to explain a common sense position to you. Current approaches are failing. --Snowded (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The above may be fascinating but not entire clear who if anybody suport my proposal that the first sentence of the lede shall be

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Philosophy/Quotations

Would folks please say "Yes" or "No" below? (for clarification, especially for 271828182, if you read the proposal carfully it says that There is no agreed definition; it does not say the concept is indefinable. Attention to detail please! --Philogo 12:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• No. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• No. (Philogo, your parenthetical "clarification" is a distinction without a difference, especially in this context -- "there is no agreed definition" of mathematics and psychology by your captious standard.) 271828182 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is as plain as a pike staff that the proposal says, A: "There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy..." and does not say B: "the concept is indefinable".  :271828182 says suggests these words are "a distinction without a difference". I had no idea that the phrase A was either synonymous with the phrase B, or that A entailed B. If that is the problem I would be happy to rephrase my proposals so that it cannot be construed in this way but I would need some assistance because in the dialect of English I speak could not be so consrued. I could propose:

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations, which is not to say that a definition is necessarily impossible

Sounds a bit awkward to me, but we should be clear; any alternative suggestions on how to phrase it so it cannot be thus misconstrued in other English dialects? --86.27.137.42 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a distinction without a difference in this context as it utterly abdicates the responsibility of an encyclopedia article to explain its subject, merely owing to the existence of disagreement. (Under pressure to defend your position you are now narrowly interpreting your claim as "People disagree about the definition of philosophy", which is trivially true; but for your position to have any force in scrapping the lede of a major article, you are tacitly advancing a much stronger claim, that it is futile to try, i.e., that it is operationally indefinable.) As Peter has repeatedly pointed out, you could apply the same reasoning to claim that "there is no agreed definition" of mathematics, psychology, politics, or any number of other fields. This is a damning reductio of your position that you have done nothing so far to gainsay. 271828182 (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And we would also be abnegating our responsibility to WP:WEIGHT, as I have frequently commented. "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, while it's clear philosophers have huge disagreements on certain points, they are pretty much in agreement on others. One of the sources says 'Philosophy is thinking clearly and logically about big questions'. This is a down-to-earth way of expressing some of the key points of agreement. Philosophy is thinking, i.e. it doesn't rely overmuch on experimentation (except thought-experiments). It is clear, i.e. it aims for elucidation and analysis. It is logical, i.e. is guided by the canons of rationality. And the questions are big: i.e. they are fundamental or 'prior' in the Aristotelian sense. Is there any 'significant' minority of philosophers who would disagree with that? They would disagree on other matters, for sure. But "Even philosophers who proclaim the limitations of reason all adduce reasons for their views and present difficulties for opposing ones. " (Nozick). Peter Damian (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I.e. here Portal:Philosophy. Well, this says "Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask.", so emphasises philosophy's concern with the big or fundamental questions. So what's the problem? I think the definition from the philosophy portal is quite good, since it discusses the difficulty of defining philosophy and different usages of the term. 70.92.74.178 (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I.e. here Portal:Philosophy. Well, this says "Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask.", so emphasises philosophy's concern with the big or fundamental questions. So what's the problem? Peter Damian (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask.

I like "Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask."

If the anthropomorphism bothers you, we could make that:

"Philosophy is the study of the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask."

Then we could have the list: epistemology and so on.

Then tip our caps to reason: Philosophy is distinguished by clear thinking and an understanding of the major thinkers of the past.

And finish off with a snappy quote.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of 'an understanding of past thinkers', but none of the sources mentions this. Why do you not mention the word 'rational', given that nearly all the sources do? Peter Damian (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Call for consensus on first sentence

My proposal is that the first sentence of the lede shall be

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

My proposal neither states nor implies, nor is intended to state or imply that there should be no further sentences. The proposed sentence neither states nor implies, nor is intended to state or imply that a definition is necessarily impossible. The proposed sentence is evidenced by all the quotations shown at Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. Editors are of course free to add further quotations to that list. --Philogo 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea, indeed a version I wrote about 2 years back had almost exactly that opening. It lasted 2 days but was shot down in a drive-by killing, by a non-philosopher editor who objected that it was 'lame' to open an article in that way. No other article had an opening like that, was it not beyond the wits of the community to come up with an appropriate, balanced, intro? I replied that philosophy was a little different. While there was some consensus on a general suitable vague definition like 'clear and logical thinking about big questions', there was little else. This was of course howled down with derision. Apologies, Philogo, for misunderstanding your earlier point about no agreed definition not being the same as no definition possible. You understand there are many cross winds going on here. I looked at your contributions on philosophical logic and they are good. Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A point in favour of my proposed first sentence is that no editor has denied that it is true. The main attempts seem to be to say that it means something different from what it says and then attack the that other meaning. Well, that would be sort of be OK in a very freshman course on informal logic, giving examples of common fallacies and crooked arguments lesson two the "straw man" strategy but I should think its chances of succeeding on this talk page are somewhat remote.

Might I encourage you to support my proposal in the hopes of agreeing one sentence - which as I have pointed out is evidenced by all the quotations that others have acummulated? I think we need have little regard for subsequent criticisms that use inprecise terms like "lame". We need only point out that...

philosophy and the editors of this talk page lay considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument.

These who cannot support their case by precise and careful argument should do as Clint Eastowood might suggest. --Philogo 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

--Philogo 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first argument is simply the practical one that any change should not be vulnerable to drive-bys. I'm not sure how much experience you have in editing major flagship articles like this. It's one thing on the smaller articles which hardly see much action - compare those to a small provincial town in Ireland during the Second World War, and compare this one to Stalingrad or something similar. You do need to understand that. But I'm all for brokering a deal, which is how this article is edited. Would agree to something on the lines of the first part of the sentence, my argument against the second part (despite many attempts) being that it should be fairly obvious that if there has been no agreed definition of philosophy in its 3 millenium history, then there must have been many attempts. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I would prefer some qualification, also. Quinton says 'Most definitions are fairly controversial, particularly if they aim to be at all interesting or profound'. My emphasis. You also need to avoid implying that because no one is agreed on all points of the definition, therefore they disagree on all points. All definitions have parts, some parts are more controversial, some are not controversial at all. Agree? Peter Damian (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also, and here we necessarily leave the realms of all logic, because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there is an implicit understanding that this is a bargaining process. I'll agree to your bit if you agree to mine. Also 271828182 has to agree to any of this because he is a mate. Peter Damian (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A raison d'etre for the "despite many attempts to provide one," as an excuse for the following see "Talk:Philosophy/Quotations" which is intended to tempt the curious reader to click. No matter how riveting a lede we come up with, the reader would learn far more by reading some of the quotations. Those whose life is not complete unless they have said or quoted some profundity on this subject would then have the opportunity to add their words of wisdom by adding to the quotes list, rather like writing on a lavatory wall. (I was about eight when I notioed in a pub gent's that the landlord, despairing of cleaninng off graphity, put up a sign board saying "If you must write something write it here". The first contribution was "Please do not bite the woodwork while straining." The inevitable contributions from Ayn Rayns (or is it Ann?) will accumulate their like flies on fly paper, where they can be pruned at leisure. If you think that is a fair ploy we might even make it more tempting with something like:

During its 3 millenium history there have been numerous attempts to define philosphy see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations; so far none has received universal agreement.

There is the rest of the lede, remember, indeed the rest of the article to follow up the opening, and indeed an article on metaphilosophy where we could really let rip. IMHO, for this article's lede it is more important that we make clear what it is not, that is what is called philosphy in the vernacular, as in outllok on lfe, or the meaning of life the universe and everthing. We must make clear (as the University of Cambridge does in its undergrad prosepectus) that as an academic subject philosophy "lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument". A lecturer opined once that the best way to find out what philosophy is, is to do some. When people ask me I usually say go read some Plato; its all the same whether they like him or loath him; if neither then its not the subject for them. --Philogo 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it about "no" that is so hard to understand? This proposal was put to a vote, and all of the votes were negative (all three of them!), two "no" and one "sounds a bit awkard". Time to move on. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was noted and agreed some while back that the use of votes was only allowed in exceptional circumstances and that the attempt to acheive consensus is the wiki way. Naturally on this talk there is considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument, and we look forward to heri yours against the current proposal. Is it beacause you think that it expresses an untruth, or that although it expresses a truth we should not say it? Or neither?--Philogo 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I still have at least two reservations:

• The claim itself needs to be sourced, or it is OR (and thus will be especially subject to drive-bys), regardless of how many cites we can add. Peter has already offered a helpful source from Quinton, and there are most likely even better ones to be found.
• I am still inclined to say the via negativa is the option of last resort, especially for the first sentence. There is considerable dispute over the nature of mathematics, but the current article on it manages a decent lede without starting with lack of agreement. Even if there is no agreement on a definition, there is agreement that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are philosophy. 271828182 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence has to be a quote? The proposal would not disallow that that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are philosophy. It is quite common for there to be agreement of what are examples of something but yet there being no agreed definition of that something. (why is that troubling?) Most of Plato's dialogs spring to mind. Or think of words like irony, musc, poetry, torture, sentient being. It would be easier to agree on examples of these than to define them. It might be that the examples exemplify a family resemblance and are used in this manner, and not the same way as terms like density, acceleation, quotient, kilogram. The assumption that every meaningful term must have a definition like the latter and if only we could try hard enough we could either discover it or usefully stipulate it is a position, but one that would have to be argued for. Would it be useful for some international body to lay down a definition of, say, joke. If someone "discovered" or "proved" the definition of the word "joke" would we accept if and find it helpful? Wolod we comply with it? Would we insist that comedian told no non-jokes? Now ask the same questions but substituting the the term philosophy, or poetry or torture or irony or Justice. --Philogo 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Philogo, I am quite familiar with and in agreement with everything you bring up here. I empathize with your inclination to view the issue as sterile. However, don't forget that there are good reasons why Plato (and many others) thought that the lack of clear definitions for important ideas was troubling. At least one of those reasons applies here, viz., that as a practical matter, we need to help others recognize what the subject is, and observing that there is no agreed definition is, as I've said before, trivial -- a point you reinforce here by pointing out that lots of common concepts lack clear definition. Explicitly placing the lack of agreement so prominently at the start of the article, coupled with your persistent objections to most other lede content, is implying -- informally -- a stronger claim of the sort I've criticized before, that philosophy is somehow indefinable. (No, you don't explicitly say that, but, as Ludwig teaches us, you can show things without saying them.) As you say, we should try to avoid the vulgar notion that philosophy is vague talk about worldviews -- but by shying away from any substantive lede, I suspect you are taking us in that direction. And no, I don't mean the sentence has to be a quote -- it needs to be backed by a verifiable published source, as any such claim on WP does. 271828182 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is constructive to try and define a term, even if you never arrive at a definition. Thats why I always suggest people read Plato before anything else. And I think that applies to philosophy as well as jokes. Of course if we were content with a stipulative definition, then that's no problem. If on the other hand we want to try and discover what all jokes, philosophical problems &c. have in common that can be a good learning process and we might come up with an answer and we might not - who's to say? We could finish up with such definitions of jokes1 and jokes2, and the like. We might even decide there is an ideal joke somewhere whcih all joles resemble in one ay or another. The point I am making is that it is useful to try but not to tell. Hence my suggestion that directs the reader's attention to our list of quotations the reading of which might result in thinking. If it is the position as the first sentence, that is is not really very important. As to citations I of course agree we should have no OR. But do you really not think that the list of quotations is not a good citation in itself? Suppose I said in an article on dogs, that there was no agreement on what the best breed was and in support provided 10 quotations from prominent dog breeders all claiming that a different breed of dog was the best. Would those citations not support the sentence? And suppose nobody could provide a ciation to support the contention that there was an agreed best breed; would that not be extra support? Well can anybody produce a citation from a respectable source which claims that there is an agreed definition of philosophy?

Naturally if you show that "There is no agreed definition/best breed"->"There can be no agreed definition/best breed" then you claim the citations are inadequate. And if you say that the proposal means that we cannot have other sentences suggesting some useful definitions can you argue that the proposal means we should not be helpful by quotaing some. But that really is setting up a straw man to kick. I could say "There is no agreement what is the best breed of dog (see xxx: list of competing claims) ; but a majority of breeders agree, however, that the best all-round dog for a family pet is a blood-hound. (see xxx)" could I not? --Philogo 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To call for a vote and then ignore it and call for a consensus is a waste of time. There is, clearly, no consensus in favor of this first sentence. Yes, it is true. Not every sentence that is true is a good first sentence for an article. The first sentence of an article should offer helpful information to the curious reader. "Philosophy is the study of the most profound questions that mankind has asked," is a good first sentence. "Philosophy is the study of the relationship between man and the world, the nature of knowledge, and what virtue consists of," is a good first sentence. There is no shortage of good first sentences, if we could only agree on one. You need to let go, Philogo, and move on. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The call for a vote was disallowed: see above. Time you moved on, and give reasons for your views. Colourful language and rhetoric are rarely persuasive especially on a talk page such as this. It is better to address the issues straight on., eg by answering "Is it because you think that it [the prosed first sentence] expresses an untruth, or that although it expresses a truth we should not say it? Or neither." Your failure to answer says more than your colourful language.--Philogo 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Which main elements should go in?

Before we agree on the order of the sentences, would it not be sensible to decide which are included at all? Most introductions or definitions have the following

• The etymology
  • Sometimes added that this is not helpful
• The main 4 branches (logic, metaphysic, epistemology, ethics)
• clear/critical/logical thinking about big/fundamental questions
• No universal agreement about the precise definition
• it does not rely on empirical evidence, nor on revelation or authority.

Can everyone say which of these they would NOT like in the intro? And add any they feel SHOULD be in. If we could agree on that, we could then agree on the order. Peter Damian (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above but:

IMHO &c:

• To avoid loose talk, endless disussion, and a result that sounds like a "puff" I would sugegst either dropping all together the "about big/fundamental questions", part or proceed with extreme caution.
• We should proceed with similar caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". Are we using the term rely carefully and precisely? If anything that made use of empirical evidence was said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing. The whole of ordinary language philosophy for example and, I suspect, most of Plato's dialogs.
• It would be helful to add, I suggest, some remarks concerning how, over time, issues which had been considered philosophy are now subjects in their own right, e.g. what was called mental philosophy, natural philosophy &c.
• We should include a link to metaphilosophy where a number of these issues are explored in some depth, and we should avoid in this article anything that disregards that article or becomes a kind of ladybird potted version of it.
• Th lede in particular should exmplify and not fall far below the clear/critical/logical thinking that the subject itself demands.

--Philogo 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very good about answering questions, briefly and to the point, as I answered yours above. What you call "colorful language" is simply substance combined with brevity. Many people could communicate twice as much if they said half as much. You repeatedly call for clear thinking, but I sometimes fear that you do not proofread your own posts. Clear thinking is usually rethinking.

To repeat my answer to your question, because you requested it: It is true than many philosophers disagree about the definition of philosophy and about every other subject under the sun. It is a bad lead sentence because it is trivial and uninformative.

Turning to the six starred items on the list above, it seems to me that only three are important enough to go into the intro: the four main branches, the etymology, and clear thinking about critical questions. I would not object to the last point going in, though I'm not sure philosophers never experiment. Aristotle did. The other two items seem trivial, and true of most subjects. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in Philogo's reply that referenced the sources. Is there a fundamental problem about WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT. To take one example he says "If anything that made use of empirical evidence was said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing". This is plausible, and possibly true (although I have read and translated large tranches of medieval philosophy, and not noticed any appeals to empirical evidence, except where cited by Aristotle). But not the point: what do the sources say? Read the Russell, for example, and there are a number of others. The policies about original research were designed to make this sort of decision easy. Rather than rely on endless discussion and OR on the talk page, the policies require simply collecting and arranging the sources, coming to a decision about the appropriate balance (which could be achieved by statistical means) and then summarising appropriately (only the last requiring any degree of intellectual capability).

To Rick: I agree with your judgment, but again, it seems to be your judgment, rather than a balanced view of what the sources say. If we could least agree on the above two policies, this would be a lot easier. Peter Damian (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few sources which emphasise that experiment and observation are not integral to philosophy. No I don't want your philosophical objections and original research. I want you to locate sources that explicitly argue that philosophy DOES rely on observation and experiment.

Philosophical problems involve questions about the meaning, truth, and logical connections of fundamental ideas that resist solution by the empirical sciences (Woodhouse)

A philosophical proposition must be such as can be neither proved nor disproved by empirical evidence. (Russell)

[Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; they are solved, rather, by looking into the workings of our language. (Wittgenstein).

Its method for discovering the truth is rational argument (as opposed to scientific experiment or mystical intuition). (University of York)

Unlike science it doesn't rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought. (Nagel)

A brief but quite accurate description of philosophical method is that we do not observe or experiment, we construct chains of reasoning. (Cahn and Eckert) Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Peter Damien about the necessity for sources. I already said that I like Quinton as one source. Durant is good on the four branches. The OED is standard for the etymology. We could stop there. The thing about experiment has to do with weight. Most sources don't mention experiment. Neither should we, at least not in the introduction. Later, we can talk about how "natural philosophy" turned into science and philosophy followed a different path. All of your quotes above are talking about philosophy today, the introduction should be quite general, and include ancient as well as modern philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "We should proceed with similar [i.e. extreme] caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". By caution I mean we should make clear whether we/it means (a) It never or often does not make us of empirical evidence (b) It never needs empirical evidence. (c) it is not integral to philsophy. Peter this was one of your suggestion: what precisely does "it does not rely on empirical evidence" mean? Does it follwo Witgenstein in excluding "looking into the workings of our language" from "empirical evidence"? I feel this is a metaphilsophical issue which it is unrealistic to resolve on this talk page, or to be decided by weighing sources.

Peter, can you summarise fairly which of your starred list at the top have been ascented to (with or without caveats)? --Philogo 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will comment, as requested by user:Peter Damian above, that the main elements listed at the top of this section are appropriate for the lead sectt. and could/should be in. The four main branches, the etymology, and clear thinking about critical questions are the crucial elements, I would say, respecting the sources, as well as the discussion(s) pursued here. --NewbyG (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But the others have to recognise this, i.e. this is about respecting the sources, not personal views about philosophy. I think we are a long way from that. Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is all a fascinating discussion, which I would love to be drawn into. But this page is not for philosophical discussion, but for collating sources according to WP:OR. I will reply to Rick's point on how "how 'natural philosophy' turned into science", however. The Greek conception of "science" was somewhat different from ours. True science, i.e. knowledge, was of the a priori, literally, from what is prior, from first principles. Also, natural philosophy was not the same as 'first philosophy' or metaphysics. It is the latter which this article is about. On Rick's point that 'most sources' don't mention philosophy being a priori, well don't confusing not mentioning X with mentioning not-X. A significant number of the sources say, in effect, that philosophy is about the a priori, and many more imply it. E.g. Aristotle's dictum that philosophy is not about derived truths, but per se truths, the logical positivist quotations also, which I have not mentioned. So, Rick, could you go through the sources (I will add some more when I have time) and pick out those which support the idea that philosophy is not essentially a priori? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Going through the quotes in order.

• Aristotle holds that philosophy (i.e. first philosophy or metaphysics) is the science of first principles and causes.
• Aquinas says the same thing.
• The Cicero and Descartes and Hobbes are epigrammatic and not particularly helpful. Descartes elsewhere, as we know, tries to build up a system of philosophy based on reasoning from first principles.
• Kant says that philosophy 'the science of the highest maxim of the use of our reason' whatever that means.
• Ueberweg also says that philosophy is a science of first principles or 'first elements'.
• The Bradley quote I fail to understand. He says the essence of Philosophy is confined to intellectual activity. But then it is a 'a one-sided and inconsistent appearance of the Absolute'. Don't understand.
• Russell twice defends the idea that philosophy is not empirical, i.e. it is a priori. "This brings us to a second characteristic of philosophical propositions, namely, that they must be a priori. A philosophical proposition must be such as can be neither proved nor disproved by empirical evidence."
• Wittgenstein says that philosophy "neither confirm nor confute scientific investigations", that philosophy is 'conceptual investigations'.
• Ayer says that philosophy is distinguished by its method of rational investigation.
• The quotes from philosophy departments mostly emphasis the method of philosophy and the need for training in logic and critical approach.
• Quine, as is well known, thought that philosophy is in some sense 'continuous' with science. This is the one point of view that goes against the idea of philosophy is completely a priori.
• Peter King says that philosophy is not a set of propositions (i.e. the positivist view).
• Lewis says that it is not the job of philosophy to undermine pre-existing opinions, but to order them systematically.
• Nagel explicitly says that philosophy "doesn't rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought.".
• Nozick says that philosophy relies on reasoning.
• The Warnock emphasises clarity of thinking.
• Woodhouse says that philosophy investigates the questions that resist solutions by empirical means
• Cahn and Eckert say that philosophy does not observe or experiment.
• Warburton says that philosophy is an activity, the analysis and clarification of concepts.
• There are three other sources that I need to put in, supporting the idea that philosophy is a priori, non-empirical &c.

Overall, the great majority of the sources either explicitly say that philosophy is a priori or not-empirical, or they implicitly support that view, or are consistent with it. Apart from the Quine (which I regard as a 'significant minority' view) I see no reason to leave out this important characteristic of philosophy. Indeed, I see it as fundamental and essential, but that is a personal POV. Here, I am talking about the sources only. Peter Damian (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

re-entering briefly on this point (a more detailed contribution later. You can say that a significant part of the history of philosophy (especially your period Peter) is a priori and non-empiricle. However A significant component of modern philosophy of mind is entangled in the same people and experiments as a lot of neuro-science. It is also true to say that for long periods of time when natural science and psychology were the same thing as philosophy experimentation was a part of the field. Yes you can get lots of quotes to say that it is non-experimental (you can get lots of quotes for any theory in Philosophy). However even the above do not necessarily all exclude experiments (Nozick, Woodhouse, Warburton). If you want balance here, you cannot take a position that is POV. --Snowded (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is not to what extent philosophy shuns experiment. The question is, is that a point important to make in the introduction. As I said, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

Peter Damian, I think you exaggerate the opposition to crafting the introduction from primary sources just as Philogo exaggerates the opposition to the truth of his statement that philosophers disagree about the definition of philosophy. Everyone accepts both statements as true, as far as I can tell, and everyone except Philogo has said that the latter doesn't belong in the introduction. It seems to me we are very close to agreement, and it remains only for someone to write an introduction along the lines Snowded has suggested. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Western philosophy and Islamic philosophy

According to the lead while the philosophers of North Africa and the Middle East, because of their strong interactions with Europe, are usually considered part of Western philosophy but as Henry Corbin and some others have explained western philosophy doesn't have any relation with post-Averrosian philosophy of North Africa and Middle East. Where do you put Ibn Arabi and Sufi metaphysics or Mulla Sadra and Transcendent theosophy? I propose making a separate part for Islamic philosophy and adding it in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Current proposal, if any?

I've done by best to catch up with the frantic activity of the month, but with the best will in the world, I can't work out to what "along the lines Snowded has suggested" specifically refers... There is a problem (and it's inherent to Wikipedia) about trying to wring a satisfactory introductory opening statement from countless authoritative sources. Although the sources Peter Damian has listed carry weight, it is a narrow and tendentious selection from what is out there. All the modern sources represent a certain (very broad) school. I could start listing some alternative views - Deleuze held, for example, that philosophy's purpose was to invent, not to clarify, concepts. But it will just lengthen the list and get us nowhere.

Call it "OR" if you will, but I remain convinced that the only solution is to craft a sentence (or two) in the most general terms. Someone above mentioned a preference for the terms "reasoning" or "discursive reason". I suggested way back that what was truly distinctive about philosophy was that it claims were primarily supported by argument (and I'd be happy with any modifier along the lines of "reasoned argument" or "reasoned and critical argument"). I think this (rather than reason as such) is what truly distinguishes philosophy from other entirely rational disciplines. Yes, you'll find "argument" in other disciplines, but I can't think of any other discipline where argument is the main support for the truth of its conclusions.

Now, if I knew what actual proposal - if any - is on the table, I could perhaps make my comments relevant to it... Anyway, it seems I won't write anything better than my comments on Kant from February 2007; maybe I should cut my losses. (Funny to see my old classmate Warburton being cited...) KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Hi KD (note you will be familiar with me under a different name, was Renamed user 4). I'm glad you've turned up. To forestall the inevitable confusion I proposed above that 4 main points should be included in the introduction, namely (1) the etymology of 'philosophy' (2) something about it being clear/critical/logical thinking about fundamental questions (3) its main branches (4) its reliance on a priori reasoning, rather than empirical evidence. There is some sort of agreement about the first three, there is less about the fourth. The sources you see directly above were in support of (4). In addition, Snowded has proposed a quite different approach, which is not to have an own-words introduction at all, but a handful of sources in quotation marks. I don't agree with this, because it has all the difficulties of an own-words introduction (namely which sources do you pick). Very much grateful for any help here. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The which sources you pick problem applies to your solution as well Peter ... --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to qualify that a bit Peter. I think there is agreement on the etymology. I am less sure on the three branches. metaphysics/ontology certainly, epistemology certainly and ethics/politics are there. Logic is another matter; one might add rhetoric, but you can't confine philosophical reasoning to logic alone, metaphor is a part of human reasoning for example. Assuming that a NPOV phrase is possible (and I am not convinced it is) then it might be better saying it is concerned with fundamental issues relating to the word and its nature, the way we know things, how we behave and issues of perception might be better (the latter then includes aesthetics). (those are not the right words but you get a sense of things. Using argument (your suggestion below) may be a compromise. However I think at the end of the day you are going to end up with two or three sentences that are potentially as controversial as those of Blackburn. --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS And Nigel was a student of mine, to boot. Peter Damian (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS thinking about your point that philosophy is the only discipline where its claims are supported primarily by argument (emphasis on primarily, rather than argument), it strikes me we could bring this in to replace the disputed 'a priori' point. To say something is primarily supported by argument is very close to say that it is supported by a priori reasoning (using a priori in its original Aristotelian sense), and thus we would have. (1) the etymology of 'philosophy' (2) It is mainly concerned with 'fundamental' questions, though essentially unrestricted (3) it is distinctive in approaching these questions primarily by argument (4) its main branches are x y z. How does that seem? Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that "primarily by arguments" differentiates philosophy from other disciplines? Couldn't Euclid. e.g., claim that his theorems were supported entirely by arguments? Similarly regards a priori? --Philogo 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did consciously think that emphasizing argument would help with the a priori point, which I too found problematic as previously stated. I am not expert in math or geometry, but I should have thought Euclid, like the average mathematician, established his points by demonstration. Certainly formal logicians use, or purport to use, demonstration, but I still say most philosophy proceeds by advancing arguments.

I agree that a very simple statement drafted by editors is preferable to cherry-picking quotes.19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

In reply to Phil's point: if we add 'interested in big/fundamental questions' to 'primarily by argument' you get pretty close to philosophy. That is to say, both mythology and mysticism are also interested in the big questions, but the differentia of philosophy is its exclusively logical and critical and argumentative approach to those questions. On the other side, mathematics is interested in logical and argument bit, but doesn't address the fundamental questions. As soon as you start asking what are numbers, or whether sets exist, or what really makes mathematical statements 'true', then you are into philosophy. Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] or put it in set-theoretical terms. If A is the set of those interested in the really big questions, and B the set of those interested in an exclusively logical approach to their question set, then the intersection of A and B gives philosophers. The intersection of A not B gives theologians. And B not A gives the mathematicians. OK that's very crude, but it is an answer to some equally crude objections, and it has a grain of truth. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Slowly but invetitably we move towards what characterises philosophy is not how it is carried out, but the sort of issues it addresses. Whatever methods philosophy uses, were those same methods applied to a problem that was not a philosphical issue, say the angle sum of a triangle, then you would say that it is not philosophy. And saying that the characteristic of a philosophical issue is its being "big" or "fundamental" or "basic" just will not do, will it? --Philogo 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is helpful to think about what being big/fundamental/basic means? Perhaps saying that an issue is big/fundamental/basic means that while other disciplines may also address it, they do not generally cover it in its entirety, or as broadly as philosophy does? It can be difficult to differentiate between (say) sociology and the philosophy of sociology, at least for a non-expert, but that seems to be the crux of the complaint here. 70.92.74.178 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be very helpful to think about what being 'big/fundamental/basic' means. It help to think: what would make us decied that an issue were nt a philosophical issue after all. Think of an issue where you are not sure whether it is or is not, and consider what would make you go one way or the other. Could discoveries about how the brain works solve any philosophical problems concerning the nature of the mind, will,beliefs, moral culpabilty, the nature of beauty, the diffecne begween music and noise. (Look mum, rock 'n' roll is NOT noise, look at this electrocardiogram!) If so would they still be philosophical problems and if not why not? --Philogo 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I agree with the point I think you are making. I would definitely agree there is a kind of problem that philosophy investigates, which science cannot address. E.g. what makes a brain state 'about' Julius Caesar? I don't see how neurophysiology could possibly answer that question. But Phil, we are not here to be discussing our own opinions about philosophy. Can't you get that? We are writing an encyclopedia based on other sources. If the sources say that black is white, that's what we put in the encyclopedia. Got that? Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Peter, but the fact is that nobody can come out with a citation to establish that there is an agreed or definition of philospohy (because there isn't one) so citing sources is proving fruitless. We are left with the choice of either (a) making no statement that says anything about what philosphy is (my firs suggestin whicih was rekected) (b) making such a statement backed up by a selected citation or citations (which has been criticised as OR or (c) saying what we appear to agree to be true, i.e. that there is no agreed defintion of philosophy, backed up by nurerous citatiosn to show it to be true) which was rejected. That leaves (b) [or varioations thereof] and that will continue to be criticised as OR. You can write hear untill the end of time, like the fly in the fly-bottle, citing sources to support one view or the other about what clothes the Emperor's is wearing but your selection will always be criticised as OR. And we cannot fudge issues by using the words like 'big/fundamental/basic' if we cannot say what on earth we and/or ourcited sources, mean by it. Can't you get that? --Philogo 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See below from WP:NPOV. What you say is simply wrong. You have to agree first to accepting the community-agreed process for resolving disagreements of this kind. What you are saying is ignore policy. There is a clear procedure for doing this, could you please agree to follow it. Otherwise. Peter Damian (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.